Australia Oceania Antartica

rana

rana

Cover-image not available

AU S T R A L I A ,O C E A N I A ,

a n d

A N TA R CT I CAA Continental Overview of Environmental Issues

THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTS

KEVIN HILLSTROM AND

LAURIE COLLIER HILLSTROM, SERIES EDITORS

Global warming, rainforest destruction, mass extinction,overpopulation—the environmental problems facing our planet are

immense and complex.

ABC-CLIO’s series The World’s Environments offers students and generalreaders a handle on the key issues, events, and people involved.

The six titles in the series examine the unique—and common—problemsfacing the environments of every continent on Earth and the ingenious ways

in which local people are attempting to address them.These are the titles in this series:

Africa and the Middle East

Asia

Australia, Oceania, and Antarctica

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

North America

AU S T R A L I A ,O C E A N I A ,

a n d

A N TA R CT I CA

A Continental Overview of Environmental Issues

KEVIN HILLSTROM

LAURIE COLLIER HILLSTROM

Santa Barbara, CaliforniaDenver, Colorado Oxford, England

Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Hillstrom and Laurie Collier Hillstrom

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys-

tem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without

prior permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hillstrom, Kevin, 1963–

Australia, Oceania, and Antartica : a continental overview of

environmental issues / Kevin Hillstrom, Laurie Collier Hillstrom.

p. cm. — (The world’s environments)

Includes index.

ISBN 1-57607-694-6 (hardcover : alk. paper); ISBN 1-57607-695-4 (eBook)

1. Environmental sciences—Southern Hemisphere. 2.

Australia—Environmental conditions. 3. Oceania—Environmental

conditions. 4. Antarctica—Environmental conditions. I. Hillstrom, Kevin, 1963– .

World’s environments.

GE160.S645H55 2003

363.7'0099—dc22 2003020748

07 06 05 04 03 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.

Visit http://www.abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, Inc.

130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911

Santa Barbara, California 93116–1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper .

Manufactured in the United States of America

∞

Contents

List of Tables and Figures vii

Introduction:The World’s Environments ix

Acknowledgments xxi

Biographical Notes xxiii

1 Population and Land Use 1

2 Biodiversity 25

3 Parks, Preserves, and Protected Areas 51

4 Forests 73

5 Agriculture 97

6 Freshwater 121

7 Oceans and Coastal Areas 145

8 Energy and Transportation 167

9 Air Quality and the Atmosphere 185

10 Environmental Activism 207

11 Antarctica 231

Appendix: International Environmental

and Developmental Agencies, Organizations,and Programs on the World Wide Web 251

Index 255

v

List of Tables and Figures

Tables1.1 Geographical Data on Pacific Island Countries (PICs) 17

2.1 Introduced Mammals That Have Established Persistent Wild Populations in Australia 32

3.1 Australia’s Terrestrial Protected Areas by Type 55

3.2 Australia’s Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), November 2000 57

4.1 Oceania: Forest Resources by Subregion 74

4.2 Harvest from New Zealand’s Planted Forests (Actual to 2000 and Forecast to 2040) 76

5.1 The Extent of Agriculture in Oceania for the Year 2000 100

5.2 Remaining Natural Vegetation in Areas of Intensive Agriculture in Australia’s States 103

7.1 Tuna Catch by Major Species in the Secretariat of the Pacific Community Statistical Area 152

Figures

4.1 Forest Area per Capita, by Region 75

4.2 Forest Cover (Percent of Total Land Area) in Some PICs 89

6.1 Net Water Consumption by Sector 124

6.2 Tons of Nitrogen Discharged Annually in Australia 129

6.3 Tons of Phosphorous Discharged by Australia’s Inland Sewage Treatment Plants Each Year 129

vii

7.1 World Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production 149

8.1 Total Consumer Energy by Fuel in New Zealand, 2001 169

8.2 Residential Electricity Prices in Australia and Selected Countries, January 1999 173

viii List of Tables and Figures

IntroductionTHE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTS

A s the nations of the world enter the twenty-first century, they confronta host of environmental issues that demand attention. Some of these

issues—pollution of freshwater and marine resources, degradation ofwildlife habitat, escalating human population densities that place crushingdemands on finite environmental resources—have troubled the world forgenerations, and they continue to defy easy solutions. Other issues—globalclimate change, the potential risks and rewards of genetically modifiedcrops and other organisms, unsustainable consumption of freshwater re-sources—are of more recent vintage. Together, these issues pose a formida-ble challenge to our hopes of building a prosperous world community inthe new millennium, especially since environmental protection remains alow priority in many countries. But despite an abundance of troubling en-vironmental indicators, positive steps are being taken at the local, regional,national, and international levels to implement new models of environ-mental stewardship that strike an appropriate balance between economicadvancement and resource protection. In some places, these efforts haveachieved striking success. There is reason to hope that this new vision ofenvironmental sustainability will take root all around the globe in the com-ing years.

The World’s Environments series is a general reference resource that pro-

vides a comprehensive assessment of our progress to date in meeting the nu-

merous environmental challenges of the twenty-first century. It offers

detailed, current information on vital environmental trends and issues facing

nations around the globe. The series consists of six volumes, each of which

addresses conservation issues and the state of the environment in a specific

region of the world: individual volumes for Asia, Europe, and North America,

published in spring 2003, will be joined by Africa and the Middle East;

Australia, Oceania, and Antarctica; and Latin America and the Caribbean in the

fall of the same year.

ix

Each volume of The World’s Environments includes coverage of issues

unique to that region of the world in such realms as habitat destruction,

water pollution, depletion of natural resources, energy consumption, and

development. In addition, each volume provides an overview of the region’s re-

sponse to environmental matters of worldwide concern, such as global warm-

ing. Information on these complex issues is presented in a manner that is

informative, interesting, and understandable to a general readership. Moreover,

each book in the series has been produced with an emphasis on objectivity and

utilization of the latest environmental data from government agencies, non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), and international environmental re-

search agencies, such as the various research branches of the United Nations.

OrganizationEach of the six volumes of The World’s Environments consists of ten chapters

devoted to the following major environmental issues:

Population and Land Use. This chapter includes continental population

trends, socioeconomic background of the populace, prevailing consumption

patterns, and development and sprawl issues.

Biodiversity. This chapter reports on the status of flora and fauna and the

habitat upon which they depend for survival. Areas of coverage include the

impact of alien species on native plants and animals, the consequences of de-

forestation and other forms of habitat degradation, and the effects of the in-

ternational wildlife trade.

Parks, Preserves, and Protected Areas. This chapter describes the size,

status, and biological richness of area park systems, preserves, and wilderness

areas and their importance to regional biodiversity.

Forests. Issues covered in this chapter include the extent and status of for-

est resources, the importance of forestland as habitat, and prevailing forest

management practices.

Agriculture. This chapter is devoted to dominant farming practices and

their impact on local, regional, and national ecosystems. Subjects of special

significance in this chapter include levels of freshwater consumption for irri-

gation, farming policies, reliance on and attitudes toward genetically modified

foods, and ranching.

Freshwater. This chapter provides detailed coverage of the ecological

health of rivers, lakes, and groundwater resources, extending special attention

to pollution and consumption issues.

x Introduction

Oceans and Coastal Areas. This chapter explores the ecological health of

continental marine areas. Principal areas of coverage include the current state

of (and projected outlook for) area fisheries, coral reef conservation, coastal

habitat loss from development and erosion, and water quality trends in estu-

aries and other coastal regions.

Energy and Transportation. This chapter assesses historic and emerging

trends in regional energy use and transportation, with an emphasis on the en-

vironmental and economic benefits and drawbacks associated with energy

sources ranging from fossil fuels to nuclear power to renewable technologies.

Air Quality and the Atmosphere. This chapter reports on the current state

of and future outlook for air quality in the region under discussion. Areas of

discussion include emissions responsible for air pollution problems like acid

rain and smog, as well as analysis of regional contributions to global warming

and ozone loss.

Environmental Activism. This chapter provides a summary of the history

of environmental activism in the region under discussion.

In addition, each volume of The World’s Environments contains sidebars

that provide readers with information on key individuals, organizations, proj-

ects, events, and controversies associated with specific environmental issues.

By focusing attention on specific environmental “flashpoints”—the status of a

single threatened species, the future of a specific wilderness area targeted for

oil exploration, the struggles of a single village to adopt environmentally sus-

tainable farming practices—many of these sidebars also shed light on larger

environmental issues. The text of each volume is followed by an appendix of

environmental and developmental agencies and organizations on the World

Wide Web. Finally, each volume includes a general index containing citations

to issues, events, and people discussed in the book, as well as supplemental ta-

bles, graphs, charts, maps, and photographs.

Coverage by Geographic RegionEach of the six volumes of The World’s Environments focuses on a single re-

gion of the world: Africa and the Middle East; Asia; Australia, Oceania, and

Antarctica; Europe; Latin America and the Caribbean; and North America. In

most instances, the arrangement of coverage within these volumes was obvi-

ous, in accordance with widely recognized geographic divisions. But placement

of a few countries was more problematic. Mexico, for instance, is recognized

both as part of North America and as the northernmost state in Latin America.

Introduction xi

Moreover, some international environmental research agencies (both govern-

mental and nongovernmental) place data on Mexico under the North

American umbrella, while others classify it among Central American and

Caribbean nations. We ultimately decided to place Mexico in the Latin

America volume, which covers Central and South America, in recognition of

its significant social, economic, climatic, and environmental commonalities

with those regions.

Similarly, environmental data on the vast Russian Federation, which

sprawls over northern reaches of both Europe and Asia, is sometimes found in

resources on Asia, and at other times in assessments of Europe’s environment.

Since most of Russia’s population is located in the western end of its territory,

we decided to cover the country’s environmental issues in The World’s

Environments Europe volume, though occasional references to environmen-

tal conditions in the Russian Far East do appear in the Asia volume.

Finally, we decided to expand coverage in the Africa volume to cover envi-

ronmental issues of the Middle East—also sometimes known as West Asia.

This decision was made partly out of a recognition that the nations of Africa

and the Middle East share many of the same environmental challenges—

extremely limited freshwater supplies, for instance—and partly because of the

space required in the Asia volume to fully explicate the multitude of grave envi-

ronmental problems confronting Asia’s central, southern, and eastern reaches.

Coverage of other nations that straddle continental boundaries—such as the

countries of the Caucasus region—are also concentrated in one volume,

though references to some nations may appear elsewhere in the series.

Following is an internal breakdown of the volume-by-volume coverage for

The World’s Environments. This is followed in turn by overview maps for the

current volume showing country locations and key cities and indicating phys-

ical features.

xii Introduction

Africa and the Middle East

Middle East and North Africa:

Algeria

Bahrain

Cyprus

Egypt

Gaza

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syrian Arab Republic

Tunisia

Turkey

United Arab Emirates

West Bank

Yemen

Sub-Saharan Africa:

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cameroon

Central African Republic

Chad

Congo, Democratic Republic of

(Zaire)

Congo, Republic of the

Côte d’Ivoire

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Gambia

Ghana

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Kenya

Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mauritania

Mozambique

Namibia

Niger

Nigeria

Rwanda

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Somalia

South Africa

Sudan

Tanzania

Togo

Uganda

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Asia

Afghanistan

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Introduction xiii

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Cambodia

China

Georgia

India

Indonesia

Iran

Japan

Kazakhstan

Korea, Democratic People’s

Republic of (North)

Korea, Republic of (South)

Kyrgyzstan

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Malaysia

Mongolia

Myanmar (Burma)

Nepal

Pakistan

Philippines

Singapore

Sri Lanka

Tajikistan

Thailand

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Australia, Oceania, and Antarctica

Australia

Cook Islands

Fiji

French Polynesia

Guam

Kiribati

Nauru

New Caledonia

Northern Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia, Federated States of

New Guinea

New Zealand

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Pitcairn Island

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Tonga

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

Wallis and Futuna

Various territories

(Note: Antarctica is discussed in astand-alone chapter)

Europe

Albania

Austria

Belarus

Belgium

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

xiv Introduction

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia, Republic of

Moldova

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Yugoslavia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Argentina

Belize

Bolivia

Brazil

Caribbean territories

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cuba

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

El Salvador

Guatemala

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Mexico

Nicaragua

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago

Uruguay

Venezuela

North America

Canada

United States

Introduction xv

Canberra

0 500 kmS O U T H E R N O C E A N

TASMANSEA

CORALSEA

TIMORSEA

INDIANOCEAN

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN

TERRITORY

WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES

QUEENSLAND

VICTORIATASMANIA

A R A F U R A S E A

AUSTRALIA

Elevation (meters)

0–200200–500500–1,0001,000–2,0002,000–3,000

0 500 kmS O U T H E R N O C E A N

T A S M A NS E A

C O R A LS E A

T I M O RS E A

A R A F U R A S E A

I N D I A NO C E A N

Cape CatastropheCape LeeuwinCape Naturaliste

Cape York

Cape MelvilleGulf ofCarpentaria

JosephBonaparte

Gulf

Cape Lévêque

GreatAustralian Bight

Bass Strait

Torres Strait

Gr e a t B a r r i e r

R e e f

Mur

chiso

n R.

Ashburton R.

Fortescue R.

OrdR.

Cooper

Creek

Tropic of Capricorn

MelvilleIsland

BathurstIsland

WellesleyIsland

GrooteEylandt

KangarooIsland

DirkHartogIsland

Daly R.

Victoria R.

Spencer Gulf

Darling

R.

G r e a tD

iv

id

in

gR

an

ge

G r e a t V i c t o r i a

D e s e r t

Gr

ea

tD

iv

id

in

g

R a n g e

CapeYork

PeninsulaArnhem

Land

Macdonnell Range

G r e a t S a n d y D e s e r t

Nul l a rbor P la in

Gilbert R.

Flinders R.

Murray R.

LakeEyre

Darling

R.

G r e a tD

iv

id

in

gR

an

ge

G r e a t V i c t o r i a

D e s e r t

Gr

ea

tD

iv

id

in

g

R a n g e

CapeYork

PeninsulaArnhem

Land

Macdonnell Range

G r e a t S a n d y D e s e r t

Nul l a rbor P la in

Gilbert R.

Flinders R.

Murray R.

LakeEyre

LakeDisappointment

LakeMackay

Fitzroy R.

ExmouthGulf

TasmaniaasmaniaTasmania

AUSTRALIA

U.KAUSTRALIA

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

I N D I A N O C E A N

P A C I F I C O C E A N

South Pole




S O U T H E R N O C E A N

AUSTRALIA

NORWAY

UN

ITED

KINGDOM

CH

ILE

FRAN

NEW ZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

CLAI

MED

BYAR

GEN

TIN

A

ANITNEGRAYBDEMIALC

CLAI

MED

BYCH

ILE

no

tc

la

im

ed

ar

e

a

500 km0

ANTARCTICA




S O U T H E R N O C E A N

RonneIce Shelf

Ross Ice Shelf

ShackletonIce Shelf

BerknerIsland

RooseveltIsland

RonneIce Shelf

Ross Ice Shelf

ShackletonIce Shelf

BerknerIsland

RooseveltIsland

WEDDELLSEA

ROSS SEA

BELLINGSHAUSENSEA

AMUNDSEN SEA

LarsenIce Shelf

Cape Norvegia

Cape Boothby

Amery Ice Shelf

West IceShelf

Prydz Bay

CapePoinsett

Cape Adare

South OrkneyIslands (U.K.)

South ShetlandIslands (U.K.)

Alexander Island

Thurston Island

Carney Island

Siple Island

South Pole

Palmer LandEllsworth Land

Marie Byrd Land

Coat

s Lan

d

Riiser-LarsenPeninsula

En de rby Land

Wi l k

es

La

nd

Knox

Coas

t

George V Land Land

Tr

an

sa

nt

ar

ct i c

Mo

un

ta

in

s

Queen Maud Land

Glacier

Prince Charles Mts.

Cape Bickerton

Elsworth Mts.

PensacolaMts.

RecoveryGlacier

Dra

kePa

ssag

e

DAVIS

SEA

VictoriaLand

McMurdoSound

Getz IceShelf

GrahamLand

500 km0

Elevation (meters)

0–500500–1,0001,000–2,0002,000–3,0003,000–4,000

ANTARCTICA

A U S T R A L I A

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Tropic of Cancer

PITCAIRNISLAND

COOKISLANDS

FRENCHPOLYNESIA

K I R I B A T INAURU

PALAU

SAMOA

TONGA

FIJI

WALLIS& FUTUNA

TUVALU

NEWZEALAND

MARSHALL ISLANDS

NORTHERNMARIANAISLANDSGuam

VANUATU

SOLOMONISLANDS

NEWCALEDONIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

FEDERATED STATESOF MICRONESIA

AMERICANSAMOA

OCEANIA

Acknowledgments

T he authors are indebted to many members of the ABC-CLIO family for

their fine work on this series. Special thanks are due to Vicky Speck,

Martha Whitt, and Kevin Downing. We would also like to extend special

thanks to our advisory board members, whose painstaking reviews played a

significant role in shaping the final content of each volume, and to the con-

tributors who lent their expertise and talent to this project.

xxi

Biographical Notes

AuthorsKEVIN HILLSTROM and LAURIE HILLSTROM have authored and edited award-winning reference books on a wide range of subjects, including American his-tory, international environmental issues, environmental activism, outdoortravel, and business and industry. Works produced by the Hillstroms includeEnvironmental Leaders 1 and 2 (1997 and 2000), the four-volume AmericanCivil War Reference Library (2000), the four-volume Vietnam War ReferenceLibrary (2000), Paddling Michigan (2001), Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2ded. (2001), and The Vietnam Experience: A Concise Encyclopedia of AmericanLiterature, Films, and Songs (1998).

Advisory BoardJ. DAVID ALLAN received his B.Sc. (1966) from the University of BritishColumbia and his Ph.D. (1971) from the University of Michigan. He servedon the Zoology faculty of the University of Maryland until 1990, when hemoved to the University of Michigan, where he currently is Professor ofConservation Biology and Ecosystem Management in the School of NaturalResources and Environment. Dr. Allan specializes in the ecology and conser-vation of rivers. He is the author of Stream Ecology (1995) and coauthor (withC. E. Cushing) of Streams: Their Ecology and Life (2001). He has published ex-tensively on topics in community ecology and the influence of land-use on theecological integrity of rivers. He serves or has served on committees for theNorth American Benthological Society, Ecological Society of America, andthe American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. He serves or hasserved on the editorial board of the scientific journals Freshwater Biology andJournal of the North American Benthological Society, and on scientific advisorycommittees for the American Rivers and Nature Conservancy organizations.

DAVID LEONARD DOWNIE is Director of Education Partnerships for the EarthInstitute at Columbia University, where he has conducted research and taught

xxiii

courses on international environmental politics since 1994. Educated at DukeUniversity and the University of North Carolina, Dr. Downie is author of nu-merous scholarly publications on the Stockholm Convention, the MontrealProtocol, the UN Environment Program, and other topics in global environ-mental politics. From 1994 to 1999, Dr. Downie served as Director of Envi-ronmental Policy Studies at the School of International and Public Affairs,Columbia University.

CHRIS MAGIN was educated at Cambridge University, England. He took an un-dergraduate degree in Natural Sciences and a Ph.D. in Zoology, conductingfieldwork on hyraxes in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Since then he hasbeen a professional conservationist, employed by various international organ-izations, mainly in Africa and Asia. He currently works for Flora and FaunaInternational. His special areas of interest are desert ungulates, ornithology,and protected area management.

JEFFREY A. MCNEELY is Chief Scientist at IUCN-The World ConservationUnion, where he has worked since 1980. Prior to going to IUCN, he spentthree years in Indonesia, two years in Nepal, and seven years in Thailandworking on various biodiversity-related topics. He has published more thanthirty books, including Mammals of Thailand (1975); Wildlife Management inSoutheast Asia (1978); National Parks, Conservation and Development: TheRole of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society (1984); Soul of the Tiger (1985);People and Protected Areas in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya (1985); Economics andBiological Diversity (1988); Parks for Life (1993); Expanding Partnerships forConservation (1995); Biodiversity Conservation in the Asia and Pacific Region(1995); A Threat to Life: The Impact of Climate Change on Japan’s Biodiversity(2000); The Great Reshuffling: The Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species(2001); and Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Bio-diversity (2003). He is currently working on a book on war and biodiversity.He was Secretary General of the 1992 World Congress on Protected Areas(Caracas, Venezuela), and has been deeply involved in the development of theConvention on Biological Diversity. He is on the editorial board of seven in-ternational journals.

CARMEN REVENGA is a senior associate within the Information Program at theWorld Resources Institute. Her current work focuses on water resources,global fisheries, and species conservation. She specializes in environmental in-dicators that measure the condition of ecosystems at the global and regionallevel, and is also part of WRI’s Global Forest Watch team, coordinating forestmonitoring activities with Global Forest Watch partners in Chile. Ms. Revenga

xxiv Biographical Notes

is lead author of the WRI report Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: FreshwaterSystems (2000) and a contributing author to the WRI’s Pilot Analysis of GlobalEcosystems: Coastal Ecosystems (2001). These two reports assess the conditionof freshwater and coastal ecosystems as well as their capacity to continue toprovide goods and services that humans depend on. Ms. Revenga is also thelead author of Watersheds of the World: Ecological Value and Vulnerability(1998), which is the first analysis of a wide range of global data at the water-shed level. Before joining WRI in 1997, she worked as an environmental scien-tist with Science and Policy Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting firmin Washington, DC. Her work covered topics in sustainable forestry and cli-mate change.

ROBIN WHITE is a senior associate with the World Resources Institute, an environ-mental think tank based in Washington, DC. Her focus at WRI has been on thedevelopment of environmental indicators and statistics for use in the WorldResources Report and in global ecosystems analysis. She was the lead author ofthe WRI report Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Grassland Ecosystems (2000),which analyzes quantitative information on the condition of the world’s grass-lands. Her current work focuses on developing an ecosystem goods and servicesapproach to the analysis of the world’s drylands. A recent publication regardingthis work is WRI’s Information Policy Brief, An Ecosystem Approach to Drylands:Building Support for New Development Policies. Ms. White completed her Ph.D.in geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, with a minor in wildlifeecology. Before joining WRI in 1996, she was a policy analyst with the U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.

ContributorsANGELA CASSER recently completed her Ph.D. in international environmentallaw at the University of Melbourne, where she has examined methods to im-prove the implementation of international freshwater agreements in bothAustralia and the People’s Republic of China. Angela has written widely on thesubject of freshwater, including groundwater and wetlands, and has also con-tributed written work to various international organizations includingIUCN—the World Conservation Union—the World Wide Fund for Nature,and the Ramsar Convention Bureau. Casser is presently based at the Environ-mental Law Institute in Washington, DC, as a visiting scholar, and is cochair ofthe American Society of International Law’s Environmental Interest Groupfor 2003.

A. M. MANNION is an Honorary Fellow (formerly Senior Lecturer) in theDepartment of Geography at the University of Reading, United Kingdom,

Biographical Notes xxv

where she lectured on biogeography/biodiversity, agriculture, environmentalhistory, and environmental change from 1977 to 2001. She earned her Ph.D.in Geography (environmental history) at the University of Bristol, UK, in1975. Her publications include seven books, more than thirty refereed articlesin academic journals, and over thirty contributions to encyclopedias andother reference works.

KATHRYN MILES received her Ph.D. in literature from the University of Delawareand is currently an assistant professor of English and Environmental Studiesat Unity College. She has worked as a freelance environmental writer for sev-eral newspapers and magazines, and has published on British modernism inacademic journals. She is a member of ASLE (Association for the Study ofLiterature and the Environment), NAAGE (North American Alliance of GreenEducation), and the Virginia Woolf Society.

xxvi Biographical Notes

1

Population and Land Use

The South Pacific is a region of exceptional diversity, not only in terms of itsflora and fauna but also in its human communities. The nations and terri-

tories of Oceania—defined here as Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,and twenty-one other states and territories dotting the surface of the world’slargest and deepest ocean—contain a tremendous range of ethnicities andcultures, as evidenced by the fact that more than 2,000 distinct languages arespoken across the region. Lifestyles and community characteristics run thespectrum as well, ranging from the bustling cities of Australia and NewZealand, where standards of living are very high and technological innova-tions abound, to the remote jungle villages of Papua New Guinea, where na-tives continue to engage in subsistence forms of hunting and farming.

But while demographic and socioeconomic circumstances vary from islandto island, the nations and territories in Oceania share many of the same fun-damental concerns about their capacity to absorb continued populationgrowth and steadily rising levels of resource consumption. Indeed, unsustain-able land and resource use has emerged as a major concern across the SouthPacific, from the island continent of Australia to Niue and Nauru and othersmall island nations.

Population and Land Use Trends in Australia

Population in AustraliaAustralia is an affluent and highly urbanized country that is seeing steadypopulation growth. In mid-2002 its total population was estimated at 19.7million (Population Reference Bureau, 2002), an increase of 11 percentfrom one decade earlier. Population growth forecasts have an inherent level

1

of uncertainty, but based on present trends, it is estimated that Australia’spopulation at 2050 will reach 25 to 28 million, an increase of roughly 25 to30 percent from present levels (Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Popu-lation Reference Bureau, 2002).

Much of Australia’s population growth in the last half-century is directlyattributable to immigration from Europe, the former home of most of the 5.5million migrants who have settled in the country since the conclusion ofWorld War II. This steady stream of European migrants has boosted the per-centage of Australians of European descent to approximately 94 percent of thetotal population. People of Asian and Middle Eastern descent account fornearly 5 percent of the population, while the indigenous Aborigines andTorres Strait Islanders account for about 1.5 percent of the population. Theselatter groups, reduced by the mid-twentieth century to a fraction of their for-mer size by the repercussions of European colonialism—exposure to disease,cultural disruptions, theft of land, and general discriminatory treatment—have experienced rapid population growth in recent decades. Improved accessto education, health care, and economic opportunities have all been cited asfactors in this robust growth rate.

Most Australians live in urban settings. In fact, about 65 percent of Aus-tralia’s population is concentrated in the nation’s five major cities—Sydney,Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide—and Sydney and Melbourne to-gether accommodate more than 8 million people, more than 40 percent of thecountry’s total. These and other population centers are located at variouspoints on the country’s coastline, especially along the southern and easterncoasts. In some of these cities, population and residential densities in the coreof the metro area are on the increase, a trend sometimes called “reurbaniza-tion” (Krockenberger, 2002). But the prevailing growth trend is still subur-banization extending outward from the cities, a process that has been blamedfor habitat loss and degradation; increased pressure on biodiversity; rising in-frastructure expenses for new roads, water lines, and schools; and increasedconsumption of fossil fuels such as gasoline used in longer commutes (thetotal vehicle distance traveled by Sydney residents rose by 24 percent just be-tween 1991 and 1998) (New South Wales Environmental Protection Author-ity, 2000; National Land and Water Resources Audit, Landscape Health inAustralia, 2001). The famously rugged and arid interior of the country, mean-while, remains only sparsely populated.

Few countries in the world can match Australia’s wealth and standard ofliving on a per capita basis. Ranked among international leaders by such basicmeasuring sticks as literacy, educational level, life expectancy, and householdincome, Australia was one of only four countries to increase its share of the

2 AUSTRALIA, OCEANIA, and ANTARCTICA

Cities such as Sydney, Australia, have experienced enormous growth in recent decades.

FRANK KLETSCHKUS/IMAGESTATEPICTOR/PICTUREQUEST

global economy during the past twenty years, and during the 1990s its grossdomestic product (GDP) grew at a higher rate than that of nearly any otherindustrialized country (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). Much of thisprosperity is the result of Australia’s extensive investments in oil, mining,forestry, farming, and other natural resource industries, many of which have astrong export component.

Indeed, Australia’s economy has been heavily reliant on the harvest, extrac-tion, and management of its natural resources throughout its history, and re-cent years have been no exception. For example, in 2000 Australia’s farming,forestry, and mining sectors accounted for 57 percent of the country’s totalexport income (Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics,2001). Still, in Australia’s most heavily populated states—New South Walesand Victoria—agriculture, mining, and forestry no longer enjoy unchallengedclaims to land and resources. The primacy of these traditional powers is in-creasingly challenged by tourism and recreation, service industries, urban andsuburban developments, and other constituencies.


Mining—the extraction of minerals,

fossil fuels, and construction materials

such as sand and gravel from the

earth—has a long and colorful history

in Australia. Coal was discovered in

Newcastle within three years of

European settlement, and exports of

coal began before the turn of the

nineteenth century.The discovery of

gold in 1851 created a gold rush that

doubled the European population of

the continent within a decade. In fact,

many regions of Australia were first

opened to European settlement by

prospectors or mining companies.

Mining continues to make an important

contribution to the nation’s economy

today. Australia is among the world’s

leaders in production of bauxite, lead,

mineral sands, silver, uranium, zinc, coal,

cobalt, copper, gold, iron ore, nickel,

lithium, and industrial diamonds.

Although mining provides

important economic benefits to the

Australian people, it also carries a

number of environmental costs.

Particularly in its early days, mining

caused considerable damage to the

continent’s land and water resources, as

well as to its human and animal

inhabitants. Some of the more common

problems associated with mining and

related processing operations include:

disturbance and erosion of soil;

disruption, overuse, or pollution of

groundwater; contamination of surface

water with sediments, chemicals, or

heavy metals; and destruction of

natural ecosystems through the

creation of water-filled pits, heaps of

The Past, Present, and Uncertain Future of Mining in Australia

(continues)

Given Australia’s comparatively low population density, it does not con-sume nearly as much of the world’s natural resources as do the United States,China, India, and other countries with larger populations. Nonetheless,Australia’s per capita consumption levels are among the highest in the world.At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Australia had the highest percapita emissions of greenhouse gases—the chemicals responsible for globalclimate change—on the planet. In addition, its per capita generation of mu-nicipal waste was second only to that of the United States, and per capita wateruse in Australia was the fifth highest in the world, even though the country oc-cupies the driest inhabited continent on the planet. Its rate of degradation ofarable land has also been cited as the highest in the world (Christoff, 2002).

Australia’s high levels of personal income and overall material affluence areobvious factors in these elevated rates of consumption. Other factors fre-quently cited for Australia’s high resource consumption levels include a popu-lar belief that the continent’s resources are virtually inexhaustible, and trustthat ongoing technological innovations and scientific advances will be able to

Population and Land Use 5

mining refuse, and abandoned mining

operations.

One of the most famous examples

of the environmental devastation that

can be wrought by mining can be found

in Queenstown,Tasmania, which was

the site of copper mining and smelting

operations for many years. First the hills

surrounding the city were clear-cut of

timber to provide props for mine pits

and fuel for smelters.Then sulfurous

emissions from the smelting plant killed

whatever vegetation was left on the

hillsides downwind of town.The thin

soil soon eroded away, filling the local

river with gray sludge and leaving a

barren, moonlike landscape that has

become an unlikely tourist attraction.

Another example of the lasting

environmental problems that can be

caused by mining is the sediment-laden

Ringarooma River in Tasmania. A

century of alluvial tin mining operations

dumped an estimated 40 million cubic

meters of sediment into the river.This

material raised the riverbed near the

mines by 4 to 6 meters (12 to 18 feet)

between 1930 and 1970. Sediment was

also carried 30 kilometers (18.6 miles)

downstream and deposited in an

estuary, where it accumulated to the

point that a wharf that had once served

oceangoing ships was rendered useless.

Yet another example of

environmental damage from mining

occurs at Captains Flat, located on the

Molonglo River in New South Wales.

Captains Flat was the site of zinc,

copper, gold, and pyrite mining

between 1874 and 1962. During this

time, uncovered tailings dumps were

spread over 15 hectares of land.When

the dumps collapsed, they

contaminated the river and

(continues)

adequately address the environmental problems that will crop up during thetwenty-first century and beyond. The merits of these perspectives have beenthe subject of heated debate in Australia (and other parts of the world whereresource consumption rates are high, such as North America and Europe)throughout the last decade, especially as consumption rates have spiraled up-ward in nearly every measurable sector. For example, end-use consumption ofenergy by the residential sector has increased by 60 percent since 1975, eventhough the general population registered only a 35 percent increase duringthat time (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Together, Australia’s rapidly expanding population and its appetite for en-ergy, food, and material goods have had an appreciable impact on the healthand integrity of the environment, both on the continent and around theworld. In fact, studies issued in recent years make a strong case that the coun-


downstream pastureland with heavy

metals.The affected area was

rehabilitated at great public expense

beginning in 1979.

Proponents of Australia’s mining

industry note that it has become much

more environmentally sensitive over

the years.They point out that the

rehabilitation of mining sites, which is

considered routine (and often required

by law) today, rarely occurred before

the 1960s and 1970s. In 1996, the

industry launched the Australian

Minerals Industry’s Code of

Environmental Management.This code,

which was agreed upon by forty-one

companies representing 80 percent of

Australia’s mineral production, sets

forth a series of environmental

standards for mining operations. In

addition, several individual companies

have created their own environmental

policies, which emphasize sustainable

development.

Critics of the Australian mining

industry claim, however, that companies

changed their ways only after increased

public scrutiny prompted new

government regulation.They also point

out that contemporary mining

operations, while more environmentally

sensitive than those of the past, still

create environmental problems. For

example, a tailings dam at the Jabiru

uranium mine overflowed in 1995,

contaminating nearby land and water

with radioactive waste. Also in 1995, a

gold mining operation near Parkes in

New South Wales accidentally released

cyanide used in gold processing.This

toxic chemical was responsible for

killing large numbers of birds and fish in

the surrounding area. And

environmentalists charge that routine

mining operations also degrade local

watersheds and other wildlife habitat.

Mindful of the public outrage that

has accompanied heavily publicized

(continues)

try is presently traveling down environmentally unsustainable pathways in ahost of areas, from farming and forestry to water use and energy policy(Australian Conservation Foundation, 2000; Christoff, 2002). “The historicalincrease in population—coupled with Australia’s high standard of living andcontinuing growth in economic activity, rates of resource extraction and car-bon emissions—has placed profound pressures on the Australian and globalenvironment,” summarized Peter Christoff, lead author of a major 2002 re-port on the state of Australia’s environment. “Australia’s severe environmentalproblems—including land degradation, water shortages, and declining biodi-versity—will be exacerbated if an increasing population demands our presentstandard of living while still using existing technologies” (Christoff, 2002).

The commonwealth government and various state agencies have them-selves acknowledged serious shortcomings in current land- and water-use


mining pollution incidents, the

governments of several Australian

states have become reluctant to

grant new mining permits without

making a full assessment of the

potential environmental impact of

the proposed operations. For

example, in 1996 the government of

New South Wales denied a permit for

a gold mine potentially worth $1.2

billion in order to preserve Lake

Cowal and its 170 species of

waterbirds.

The future of mining in Australia

appears likely to involve conflict

over opening new lands to mineral

exploration. Large sections of land

on the continent are currently off

limits to the mining industry. Some

of these lands have been set aside

for Aboriginal peoples, and others

have been protected as national

parks. Proponents of opening such

lands to mineral exploration argue

that it is necessary to maintain

Australia’s economic health. They

claim that the industry can conduct

mining operations in an

environmentally sensitive manner

and rehabilitate disturbed areas

afterward. The industry faces stiff

opposition from environmentalists,

however, who feel that these lands

should be protected from the

potential damage associated with

mining activities.

Sources:Aplin, Graeme. 1998. Australians and

Their Environment. Melbourne: Oxford

University Press.

Flood, Peter. 1992.“Wealth from Rocks.”

In The Unique Continent. Edited by

Jeremy Smith. Queensland: University

of Queensland Press.

Young, Ann. 2000. Environmental

Change in Australia since 1788. 2d ed.

Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

practices (New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority, 2000;Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). As one national re-port flatly stated in 2001: “[T]he pressures on Australia’s landscapes have in-tensified and the condition of Australia’s lands continues to deteriorate”(Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Land UseThe Australian commonwealth’s 2001 analysis of Australia’s environmentalstanding cited six key land use issues confronting the country and its people:accelerated erosion, altered habitats, invasive species, secondary salinity andacidity, nutrient and carbon cycling, and soil and land pollution (ibid.).These and other manifestations of intensive land use, especially in Aus-tralia’s more densely populated regions, have fundamentally transformedthe natural character of vast tracts of land; in fact, more than half of thecontinent’s total land area has been cleared, thinned, or otherwise signifi-cantly modified for human use (Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development, 1998). Indeed, one recent study states that 38 percent ofall native forests, 25 to 30 percent of eucalypt woodlands, 30 percent of rainforest communities, 45 percent of heath communities, 90 percent of tem-perate woodlands, and a major share of native grasslands in coastal plainshave been permanently cleared (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001;National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian Native VegetationAssessment 2001, 2001). “Today less than half of the continent has a level ofnaturalness equivalent to that of pre-European occupation. In Victoria, lessthan 5 percent of the land is in this category, and Tasmania, often considereda wilderness destination for trekkers, has only 35 percent of land classed asremote and highly natural” (Australian State of the Environment Com-mittee, 2001).

This erosion of natural systems seems unlikely to slacken any time soon,given current practices. In the 1990s, more than 450,000 hectares were clearedof native vegetation on an annual basis for roads, homes, commercial devel-opments, and extractive purposes, and there are indications that this rate ofclearance is actually increasing (National Land and Water Resources Audit,Australian Native Vegetation Assessment 2001, 2001; Christoff, 2002). TheWilderness Society, for example, claims that from 1999 to 2001, more than 1million hectares of native bushland were cleared across the state ofQueensland—33 percent more than in the previous two-year period—despitethe introduction of new measures to control illegal land clearing (WildernessSociety, 2003).


Historically, agriculture has been the single greatest driver of land alter-ation on the Australian continent. Cultivation and pastoralism (especiallysheep herding) was the cornerstone of Australia’s economy in the decadesfollowing European colonization, and today agriculture leaves its imprint onabout 60 percent of the continent (approximately 450 million hectares).Agriculture remains the main cause of permanent land clearing and frag-mentation of natural ecosystems, and it has been blamed for degrading waterresources in ways that have endangered human health and diminished fresh-water biodiversity. For example, more than one of four of Australia’s riversystems are now approaching or exceeding their limits for sustainable use, asirrigation-dependent farmers (and thirsty cities and towns) take greater andgreater amounts of water out of the rivers (Christoff, 2002).

Agricultural practices have also been cited as a major element in the conti-nent’s soil quality woes. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it was es-timated that up to 5.7 million hectares of land are at serious risk or affected bydryland salinity caused by shallow groundwater tables, and that 17 millionhectares could be affected by 2050. In fact, it has been estimated that Australiaaccounts for about 19 percent of the world’s soil erosion, even though it hasonly 5 percent of its land mass. “There are—in human terms—no ‘tolerable’rates of soil loss for many of Australia’s soils. Salinity is now recognized as oneof the greatest threats facing the country, with dire consequences for rural en-vironment and social values. It could affect between 6 [and] 12 percent of thecontinent’s total cropland and improved pasture within 30 to 50 years if effec-tive action is not taken” (ibid.).

Of course, land alteration is not limited to rural farming areas. Coastal NewSouth Wales, southern Queensland, and the coastal transport corridor ex-tending from Sydney to Melbourne have all regularly posted growth rates ofover 5 percent annually in recent years (State of the Environment Committee,2001), as municipalities and developers labor feverishly to provide for thesteady stream of rural Australians and immigrants settling in these areas.

Australia’s commonwealth government, its six state and two territorial gov-ernments, and its multitude of local governments have taken some steps toaddress those land use patterns that threaten the country’s ecological healthand integrity. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, approximately 8percent of Australia’s land area was included in its national park system andwas thus protected from many forms of development. In addition, vitalcoastal areas that provide habitat for both terrestrial and marine species havereceived particular attention. For example, 63 percent of Victoria’s coastline isprotected, and large expanses of coastline are safeguarded in New South Wales


(33 percent) and Queensland (25 percent) as well (Christoff, 2002). Australia’scoastline is also dotted with two hundred marine protected areas (MPAs),ranging from small state- and territory-managed aquatic reserves to marineparks under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth.

But critics charge that sustainable land use ideals have not been adequatelyintegrated into most policy areas at the state, territorial, or national (com-monwealth) levels. Historically, states and territories have been regarded asthe primary arbiters of resource management and land use policies withintheir borders, and their philosophies on environmental issues have rangedconsiderably from state to state (and from administration to administrationwithin these states and territories).

Similarly, Australia’s national government policies on land use and otherenvironmental issues have shifted with the political winds over the past twodecades. “Over the past 10 years, successive Australian governments havefailed to integrate ecologically sustainable development into their policies andprograms,” charged one 2002 report by a consortium of Australia’s leading en-vironmental organizations. “Significant or potentially important institutionalinitiatives developed during the late 1980s and early 1990s were dismantled,undermined or collapsed through neglect during the past 10 years. The mostimportant of these initiatives was the National Strategy for EcologicallySustainable Development, which was abandoned in 1997. [At present] there isno national strategy to guide Australia towards ecological sustainability”(Christoff, 2002).

Supporters of Australia’s national leadership during this period refute thecharge that they are insensitive to environmental issues. They point out thatAustralia’s first department dedicated solely to environmental affairs—Environment Australia—was created in 1996, and they claim that some of theland use policy changes pushed by environmentalists involve too much eco-nomic sacrifice. They also tout the 1997 creation of the Natural HeritageTrust, a self-described “environmental rescue plan” to restore and conservenatural resources by providing funding to community/grassroots groups for ahost of environmental projects. Detractors, however, claim that these andother programs to implement sustainable land use practices and protect frag-ile ecosystems remain underfunded, and that they do not adequately addressthe root causes of unsustainable land use, such as policies that encourage—orat least do not discourage—wholesale land alteration. “Between 1996 and2001, the Natural Heritage Trust funded the replanting of some 620,000hectares of native vegetation,” acknowledged Christoff. “At the same time, thenational government refused to address the problem of native vegetationclearing, the major source of land degradation, salinity and loss of habitat and


biodiversity. Consequently over 3 million hectares of bush were razed duringthe same time—leaving a deficit of over 2.4 million hectares in lost habitatand additional greenhouse emissions” (Christoff, 2002).

Population and Land Use Trends in New Zealand

PopulationNew Zealand’s main North and South Islands and their myriad satellite is-lands provide about 27 million hectares of land for some 3.9 million people.According to current population trends, the country could hold more than 5million people by the mid-twenty-first century (Population ReferenceBureau, 2002). But even if these forecasts hold true, New Zealand would re-main one of the least densely populated countries in the world. Isolated fromother major world population centers and seemingly dedicated to preservinglarge swaths of its natural wealth from commercial exploitation, New Zealandsimply has not received the same immigration and development pressures asmost other developed nations. Moreover, the country does not appear to beanxious about this state of affairs, for it has maintained carefully calibratedimmigration policies for the past quarter-century.

Today, approximately 85 percent of the population is concentrated in NewZealand’s towns and cities, making the country one of the most urbanized inthe world. Half the people live in the upper North Island, a quarter live in thelower North Island, and the remaining quarter live in the South Island. Insome metropolitan centers—most notably Auckland and Christchurch—re-gional land and water resources are under increasing strain from robust pop-ulation growth. In Auckland, environmental problems include freshwatershortages, diminished coastal water quality, and loss of wetlands and produc-tive farmland on the city’s fringe areas. In Christchurch, smog and other airquality problems traced to heavy emissions from automobiles and othersources is the highest-profile environmental issue.

On average, New Zealand’s citizens enjoy a high standard of living andquality of life when compared with that of most of the rest of the world. Thenation ranks among world leaders in numerous educational, health, and eco-nomic indicators (Statistics New Zealand, 2003), and its people have an in-ternational reputation as hardy lovers of the outdoors who revel in theircountry’s wild mountains and forests. But considerable variation in health,education, and income exists among the different ethnic groups in NewZealand. People of European-only descent, who account for about 80 percentof the total population, post the highest scores in measurements of health,


education, and income. Another 10 percent of New Zealand’s population iscomposed of Asians, Indians, immigrants from other Pacific islands, andpeople of mixed ethnic backgrounds. The indigenous Maori people accountfor the remaining 10 percent of the population, and they are far behind therest of the general population in virtually every socioeconomic category, in-cluding education, health, income, percentage of single parent families,home ownership rates, and rates of incarceration. But quantifiable improve-ments have been realized in recent years in some health and education cate-gories, and the legal rights of the Maori have been greatly enhanced in recentyears. In the meantime, the geographic distribution of Maori families has un-dergone a sea change in the past half-century. At the end of World War II, 75percent of the Maori population lived in rural areas; by 1970 three out offour Maori lived in cities or towns, and today the percentage of Maori livingin urban environments is roughly equivalent to that of the general popula-tion (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997; Loughran, 2000).

Land UseSince permanent human settlements first became established in New Zealand700 to 800 years ago, the landscapes of the North and South Islands have un-dergone extensive change. For example, indigenous forests once coveredabout 85 percent of the country’s land area, but now they cover only about 25to 30 percent, with the bulk of the remaining old-growth forests confined tomountainous areas and various low-lying pockets of the two islands (NewZealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997; UN Food and AgricultureOrganization, 2001). Virtually all of the remaining indigenous forests are pro-tected, and many other forests are now safeguarded from logging and otheractivities as well. But the government acknowledges that forests in low-lyingcoastal areas have been heavily fragmented by population pressures, and thatthey “will need considerable expansion if the biodiversity within them is to besustained” (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997). Similarly, NewZealand’s duneland ecosystems have been heavily modified by grazing, fires,coastal development, and introduced trees and grasses, and its grasslands haveexpanded dramatically as a result of earlier eras of deforestation and contin-ued reliance on range-fed pastoralism (ibid.).

Today, nearly half of New Zealand’s total land area is classified as pasture, areflection of agriculture’s continued importance to the overall economy. Thelivestock sector is particularly vital to the country’s economic fortunes; alltold, the country supports an estimated 57 million animals (primarily sheepand cattle) in free range agricultural systems (New Zealand Ministry ofAgriculture and Fisheries, Sectors/Animals, 2002). But concerns have mounted


The Maori are a people of Polynesian

origin who were the first human

inhabitants of New Zealand.They

arrived around 1200 A.D. from the Cook

Islands, Society Islands, and Marquesas

Islands in the Pacific Ocean.The first

Maori settlers probably consisted of

between 50 and 500 people who made

a planned migration to New Zealand in

a fleet of large canoes. As the Maori

settled throughout New Zealand, they

developed a distinctive culture.Their

population grew rapidly as they

exploited the islands’abundant

supplies of fish, sea mammals, and birds.

Later, when these food sources

declined, they began to clear land for

farming. Over time the Maori formed a

stable relationship with the

environment in their remote and

rugged home.They developed customs

to regulate resource use, conserve

important food sources, and protect

burial grounds and other significant

lands.

The first European colonists arrived

in New Zealand in the late eighteenth

century.The Maori population was

around 100,000 by the time British

explorer James Cook established

friendly relations with some tribes in

1769. By the early 1800s European ships

visited New Zealand frequently, and the

Maori traded commercial crops for

weapons, tools, clothing, and books.

In 1840, British representatives and

Maori chiefs signed the Treaty of

Waitangi, which is sometimes regarded

as New Zealand’s founding document.

The treaty established British rule over

New Zealand, granted British citizenship

to the Maori people, and recognized

Maori land rights, though many treaty

provisions remain in dispute today.

The Maori People of New Zealand

(continues)

New Zealand Maori men perform a traditional war dance. ANDERS RYMAN/CORBIS

New Zealand officially became a

colony of Great Britain in 1841, at which

time the number of European

settlements grew rapidly. Conflicts over

land claims led to violent clashes

between these settlers and the Maori

between 1843 and 1872—a period

known as the New Zealand Wars.The

Maori lost most of their traditional lands

during this time. Some lands were

confiscated by British authorities, while

others were stolen through fraudulent

or forced sales. As a result, less than one-

sixth of New Zealand remained under

Maori ownership by the 1890s, and

most remaining Maori lands were

poorly suited to farming.

The Maori population declined

steadily during the 1800s as a result of

the wars and the withering toll of

European diseases, reaching a low point

of 42,000 in 1896. But the population

rebounded in the twentieth century

with halting improvements in health

care and improved access to basic

sanitation systems. In fact, the number

of Maori doubled between 1921 and

1951, then doubled again between

1951 and 1971, to reach 500,000 in 1996

(about 15 percent of New Zealand’s

total population).

The mid-1900s also saw a mass

migration of Maori to New Zealand’s

cities. By the 1990s more than 80

percent of Maori lived in urban areas,

compared with around 20 percent at

the end of World War II. Unfortunately,

greater distance from tribal authority

and a loss of cultural support created

problems for some Maori: they suffered

higher rates of alcoholism, drug

dependency, unemployment, and

imprisonment than the general

population. At the same time, however,

the Maori benefited from

improvements in health care and

education.

During the second half of the

twentieth century, the Maori underwent

a sort of cultural and political

renaissance.They gained some measure

of political power and began calling for

a revival of their traditional language

and the return of their ancestral lands.

In 1980, New Zealand formed a

government investigative body called

the Waitangi Tribunal to settle Maori

legal claims and grievances based on

the landmark 1840 treaty. Since that

time, treaty obligations have been

explicitly recognized in the nation’s

environmental laws and policies. For

example, both national and local

governments are required to consult

with Maori communities before making

decisions that affect them, including

decisions about resource management

and environmental issues.

This stipulation is a significant

development, for over the course of

their 800-year history in New Zealand,

the Maori developed a set of

environmental values and priorities that

differ from those typically held by

mainstream European

environmentalists.The Maori tend to

place less emphasis on protecting land

or other resources based on their

intrinsic or aesthetic value, for instance,

and greater emphasis on protecting

land with ancestral and mythological

associations.

(continues)


in recent years over the impact of these herds on the environment due toepisodes of severe overgrazing and degradation of waterways from animalwaste and erosion of riverbanks.

New Zealand’s primary laws controlling the environmental effects of landuse are the Resource Management Act 1991, which formally mandates sustain-able management as a guiding principle in a wide array of policy areas, and theConservation Act 1987, which provides for formal protection of ecologicallyvaluable forests, wetlands, and other natural areas. But several other notablelaws have been passed in recent years as well, including legislation specificallydesigned to combat pests and invasive species; ensure sustainable logging offorestlands; and protect human communities and ecosystems alike from haz-ardous materials. New Zealand policy-makers have also moved to address long-term shortcomings in monitoring and research of land management issues.

Perhaps the most significant

difference in Maori environmental

views concerns water resources. In

Maori belief systems, water is a living

thing that is animated by a spiritual

force. They have a unique perception

of water quality and feel that water

can suffer degradation from even

small amounts of pollutants. As a

result, the Maori tend to place a higher

priority on sewage treatment and

wastewater discharge issues than

other people.

The Maori have waged several

successful environmental campaigns

against pollution of tribal waters over

the years. In 1983 the Te Atiawa claim in

the Waitangi Tribunal helped stop a

proposed sewage pipeline that would

have discharged chemicals from an

industrial plant near traditional fishing

grounds. Similarly, in 1984 the Kaituna

claim helped divert a proposed pipeline

that would have discharged sewage

into the Kaituna River. Such victories

ensured that the Maori voice would

continue to be heard on environmental

and other issues in New Zealand. In

1995, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain

offered a formal apology and promised

to provide compensation to the Maori

people for the historical abuses they

have suffered at the hands of European

colonists.

Sources:Alves, Dora. 1999. The Maori and the

Crown: An Indigenous People’s Struggle

for Self-Determination. Westport, CT:

Greenwood.

Cleave, Peter. 1998. The Maori State.

Palmerston North, New Zealand:

Campus Press.

New Zealand Ministry for the

Environment. 1997. The State of New

Zealand’s Environment. Wellington:

Ministry for the Environment.

Sinclair, Karen. 2003. Maori Times, Maori

Places: Prophetic Histories. Lanham,

MD: Roman and Littlefield.

Population and Land Use Trends in Pacific Island States

PopulationThe Pacific Islands region occupies a 30-million-square-kilometer (11.5-million-square-mile) section of the Pacific Ocean, an area more than threetimes larger than the United States or China, amounting to nearly 6 percentof the earth’s surface. The islands that dot this expanse of ocean feature ahigh degree of ecosystem and species diversity, considerable economic andcultural dependence on the natural environment, and an exceptional varietyof cultures, religions, and languages. Indeed, the current demographicmakeup of Oceania reflects the Pacific Islands’ historic attraction as a migra-tion destination. Today, Melanesians, Micronesians, and Polynesians whoseancestors hailed from Southeast Asia share citizenship with people whosefamilies once lived in India, Europe, the United States, China, the Philip-pines, and other far-flung places.

Within Oceania, three generally recognized subregions exist—Micronesia(consisting of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Guam, NorthernMariana Islands, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Nauru); Polynesia (consisting ofTuvalu, Wallis and Futuna, Tonga, Tokelau, Samoa, American Samoa, Niue,Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Pitcairn Island); and Melanesia (consisting ofPapua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji).

Nine of the entities listed above are independent nations (Fiji, Kiribati,Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, andSamoa). Within these countries, hereditary chieftains of the past have been re-placed in most cases by popularly elected legislative governments. Oceaniaalso features a half-dozen self-governing states that maintain some sort of linkwith the countries that once ran them (Cook Islands and Niue with NewZealand; the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Northern MarianaIslands with the United States). The rest are territories that are still adminis-tered by other nations.

Population growth has been significant in the last half-century across mostof Oceania. Approximately 7.5 million people lived in the South Pacific (notincluding Australia and New Zealand) at the close of the 1990s, with 4.8 mil-lion located in Papua New Guinea alone (Secretariat of the Pacific Com-munity, 1998). At the close of the 1990s, children under fifteen years of ageaccounted for about 40 percent of the population in Pacific Island Countries(PICs), an indication that fertility rates have risen in recent years. If currenttrends continue, it has been forecast that Pacific Island population will reach


the 10 million mark between 2010 and 2015, with the fastest growth occurringin towns and cities. Some countries, including the Federated States of Micro-nesia, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and the MarshallIslands, could double or even triple their current populations by 2050 if cur-rent growth trends hold (Population Reference Bureau, 2002).

Many PICs are in the midst of major transitions from subsistence-orientedeconomies to economies predicated on industrialization, commercialization,and tourism. Agriculture remains the leading source of employment and in-come in most PICs, but manufacturing, mining, forestry, fishing, and otheractivities are accounting for a steadily rising slice of the economic pie in placessuch as Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia, and Fiji (UN EnvironmentProgramme, 1999), and tourism has experienced explosive growth in a num-ber of states and territories.


Table 1.1 Geographical Data on Pacific Island Countries (PICs)

Mid-year Urban Last population Population

Country census at last census estimate 2002 %

American Samoa 2000 57,291 60,000 48

Cook Islands 2001 18,027* 17,900 59

Fed. St. of Micronesia 2000 107,008 110,700 27

Fiji 1996 775,077 823,300 46

Guam 2000 154,805 159,900 38

Kiribati 2000 84,494 86,900 37

Marshall Islands 1999 50,840 53,200 65

Nauru 1992 9,919 11,900 100

Niue 1997 2,088 1,882 35

North Mariana Islands 2000 69,221 73,300 90

New Caledonia 1996 196,836 229,300 71

Palau 2000 19,129 19,900 71

Papua New Guinea 2000 5,190,786 5,471,200 15

Pitcairn 1999 47 47 88

French Polynesia 1996 219,521 239,800 53

Samoa 2001 174,140* 175,000 21

Solomon Islands 1999 409,042 439,400 13

Tokelau 2001 1,537* 1,538 0

Tonga 1996 97,784 101,100 36

Tuvalu 1991 9,043 10,100 42

Vanuatu 1999 186,678 199,600 21

Wallis and Futuna 1996 14,166 14,700 0

*Preliminary census results.SOURCE: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2000

On many islands, however, prevailing forms of commercial developmenthave aroused serious concerns about financial fairness and long-term envi-ronmental sustainability. For example, resorts and other forms of tourism de-velopment have become a major employer and source of income for someislands, but these sorts of capital-intensive enterprises are often beyond thereach of natives. Regional economies have thus become reliant on foreigncompanies that have been faulted for repatriating the bulk of their profits totheir home countries and contributing little to overall community develop-ment. In addition, land clearing and pollution associated with resorts, facto-ries, canneries, and other commercial developments have in many casesdiminished the ecological integrity of coral reefs, rain forests, and other natu-ral resources that remain vital to the welfare of families that rely on artisanalfishing and other subsistence activities for their livelihoods (Ueki, 2000).

Foreign aid is an important source of income in the Pacific Islands as well,but the donor profile has changed over the years. The United States and theUnited Kingdom significantly reduced their aid packages to the region in the1990s, and Australian development assistance has not kept pace with inflation.However, countries such as China, Taiwan, and France have filled the breach.Eager to increase their influence in Oceania, these nations have boosted theiroverseas aid packages to targeted countries (Von Strokirch, 2002).

Urban population levels are presently low in Oceania as a whole, but there isconsiderable variation among states and territories. For example, only 13 per-


Hotel in Moorea, French Polynesia. PHOTODISC, INC.

cent of the population of the Solomon Islands live in cities, and countries suchas Papua New Guinea (15 percent) and Vanuatu (21 percent) retain primarilyrural populations. Other countries are heavily urbanized, however, in part be-cause small land areas necessitate congregation of inhabitants in a few coastalareas. Nauru’s population, for example, has been classified as 100 percenturban. Other countries with high urban populations include New Caledonia(71 percent) and Palau (71 percent) (Population Reference Bureau, 2002).

On the whole, movement toward increased urbanization is the rule ratherthan the exception across Oceania, as towns and cities are seen as places ofeconomic opportunity and centers of cultural and social Westernization—both of which are attractive to many young people in PICs. However, the exo-dus from rural communities to towns and cities has also been cited as acontributing factor in troubling social trends in many PICs, including de-clines in employment, graduation rates, and household incomes, as well as in-creases in the incidence of substance abuse, crime, and HIV/AIDS infection(Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 1998). Population growth in townsand cities is also placing significant stress on local ecosystems and biodiver-sity. Environmental degradation and unsustainable consumption of limitednatural resources is now a recognized problem in many PICs. “In general,urban growth across the Pacific is proceeding so fast that governments simplycannot keep pace with facilities and services. Urban areas of the Pacific arenow manifesting lifestyles and conditions that were unheard of as recently as20 years ago. Water is scarce and groundwater often polluted, toilets few. . . .In the larger towns, the search for environmentally safe and socially acceptablesites for solid waste disposal has become a perennial concern, which is, forseveral towns at least, seemingly insoluble. In smaller settlements and coastalperi-urban situations, mangrove areas or beaches have become the casualdumping grounds for much of the waste, ranging from derelict cars to house-hold refuse” (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

According to many conventional economic and social indicators, a signifi-cant percentage of Pacific Island populations live in poverty. In some statesthese numbers can be misleading, as “many communities still enjoy a highdegree of subsistence affluence obtained from traditional resource manage-ment systems. For many of the people, health and general social indicators,not purely economic ones, tell the real story” (ibid.). In others, such as PapuaNew Guinea, low scores do reflect grim conditions. Papua New Guinea’sscores are the lowest in Oceania in numerous sectors, including life ex-pectancy (fifty-seven, which is eight years below the average in the developingworld) and infant mortality rates, and severe impoverishment is evident inmany communities (Asian Development Bank, 2000; Bourke, 2001).


Other Oceanic states that perform very poorly on UN indexes of humandevelopment and poverty are Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, the latter ofwhich has been rocked so badly by political instability and violence in recentyears that its major industries (palm oil, gold, fish canning, and tourism) havebeen thoroughly disrupted (Von Strokirch, 2002). Countries that fall in themiddle ranks of developing nations include the Federated States of Micro-nesia, Kiribati, Nauru, and the Marshal Islands. The Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa,Tonga, and Tuvalu perform the best on UN indexes of human and economicdevelopment among countries in Oceania, but recent political unrest in Fijihas undercut socioeconomic progress in that country (UN DevelopmentProgramme, 1999; Von Strokirch, 2002).

All told, Pacific Island countries enjoy relatively high per capita incomes,high per capita aid, and productive subsistence sectors when compared withother developing countries around the world. But poverty levels may haveinched upward in recent years, pushed by high business costs (such as the ex-pense of transporting goods to market), aging infrastructure, rapid urbanpopulation growth, and the erosion of traditional support networks (VonStrokirch, 2002).

Land UseUntil relatively recently, respect for natural resources and knowledge of natu-ral environmental processes were “intrinsic” to the “everyday life and culturalperspectives” of Oceania’s communities (Ueki, 2000). In the last century or so,however, colonization, commercialization, and Westernization of PacificIsland communities have eroded traditional types of resource stewardshipand increased pressure on extremely finite land and water resources. Indeed,most islands of the South Pacific have very limited supplies of freshwater,arable land, forest, and coastal areas, and as the UN Environment Programmehas noted: “[L]imited land makes many terrestrial and near shore resourcesvery vulnerable to overexploitation and to pollution from poorly plannedwaste disposal” (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

In the early twenty-first century, numerous inhabited islands in Oceaniaare under enormous development pressure, and many projects are proceedingwith little or no consideration of the repercussions for wild habitat, biodiver-sity, or subsistence livelihoods. In the small island state of Palau, for example,tourism projects in various stages of development include massive resortcommunities carved into coastal areas and construction of an 85-kilometer(53-mile) asphalt loop around the mostly undeveloped island of Babeldoaob.Conservationists contend that these projects are being undertaken withoutadequate regard for their impact on habitat, wildlife, and ecosystem func-


tions. In some places, Palaun families have already detected signs of environ-mental degradation. “Women are noticing increased siltation in their taropatches as runoff increases. Fishers are reporting decreases in the volume oftheir catches, and in fish size. The ecosystem of Koror’s port area has been al-tered by increased algae growth attributable to sewage outflows, virtually clos-ing these traditional fishing grounds for gleaning” (Ueki, 2000).

In general terms, commercial and residential developments are applying thegreatest pressure on coastal lands in Oceania, while principal causes of landdegradation further inland include overgrazing, deforestation, and commercialcultivation (these contribute to coastal land conversion as well). These forces,which are being propelled in part by high population growth, are wholly dis-placing traditional land management systems on some islands and placing aparticularly heavy environmental burden on atolls and other small islands withlimited land and other natural resources (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

In some PICs, pressure to convert natural areas to more commercial pur-poses reflects an understandable appetite for greater material comfort and amore Westernized mode of living. But in some countries, development andexploitation pressures are rooted in grinding poverty. In poverty-riddledPapua New Guinea, for example, conservationists have long decried thestate’s approval of huge logging concessions to foreign-owned companies inareas of high biodiversity (Barry, 2002), and in 2002, Papua New Guinea an-nounced its intention to pass a variety of tax incentives, such as reduction ofthe corporate tax rate for new petroleum projects by one-third, as part of adesperate effort to beckon international mining and oil companies to itsshores. Long dependent on metal mining and oil for about 80 percent of itsexport revenues and increasingly strapped for cash to pay for the most basichealth and education programs, Papua New Guinea sees increased natural re-source extraction as its only economic option.

The island states and territories that compose Oceania are well aware thatrecent events—rapid commercial development, urbanization and populationgrowth trends, and weakening of traditional conservation regimes—all arefreighted to potentially significant ecological costs. But perspectives on appro-priate responses to these threats vary considerably. For example, in Palau,where development pressure has surged in recent years, many citizens worrythat commercial expansion of the tourism, agriculture, and fisheries sectorsposes formidable threats to the environment, and they urge greater restrainton the part of community leaders. “Others hope that development will yielddesirable economic benefits without destroying the balance of nature. Stillothers believe that the environment must be sacrificed to a certain extent inorder to achieve economic growth and material prosperity” (Ueki, 2000).


By the close of the 1990s, very few Pacific Island Countries had developedor implemented land-use policies of any strength, despite widespread recog-nition that many of the region’s fragile ecological resources are in growingjeopardy. International aid agencies, environmental groups, and research or-ganizations alike assert that this is an indefensible abdication of responsibilitythat must be addressed swiftly and decisively if Oceania is to preserve a signif-icant measure of its natural and biological wealth in the twenty-first century.“It is essential that efforts to develop and implement sustainable land man-agement policies are given the priority that the issue deserves” (UNEnvironment Programme, 1999). Fortunately, Oceania remains a region inwhich the message of sustainable resource use still has resonance. Indeed,even though many PICs are moving away from subsistence livelihoods toeconomies founded on tourism and other commercial activity, they still retaincultures “steeped in respect and understanding of the natural environment”and communities that are supportive of policies protecting wild places andthe creatures contained therein (Ueki, 2000).

Sources:Aplin, Graeme. 1998. Australians and Their Environment. Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.

Asian Development Bank. 2000. A Pacific Strategy for the New Millennium. Manila:ADB.

Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics. 2001. AustralianCommodity Statistics 2001. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2002. Australian Social Trends 2002, Population.Canberra: ABS.

———. 2001. Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends 2001. Canberra: ABS.

Australian Conservation Foundation. 2000. Natural Advantage: A Blueprint for aSustainable Australia. Melbourne: ACF.

Australian State of the Environment Committee. 2001. Australia State of theEnvironment Report 2001. Canberra: Environment Australia/CSIRO.

Barry, G. 2002. An Analysis of Papua New Guinea’s Implementation of the Conventionon Biological Diversity with a Focus on Forests. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Fern.

Bourke, R. M., M. G. Allen, and J. G. Salisbury, eds. 2001. Food Security for Papua NewGuinea. Canberra: ACIAR.

Christoff, Peter. 1998. “From Global Citizen to Renegade State: Australia at Kyoto.”Arena Journal 10.

———. 2002. A Continent in Reverse. Victoria, Australia: Australian ConservationFoundation et al.

Easton, B. H. 1997. The Commercialization of New Zealand. Auckland: AucklandUniversity Press.


Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific. 1995. Review of theEnvironment and Development Trends in the South Pacific. Port Vila, Vanuatu:ESCAP.

Flannery, Tim. 1995. The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australian Landsand People. New York: Braziller.

Krockenberger, Michael. 2002. “The State of Our Environment.” Habitat Australia 30(June).

Loughran, Robert J., Paul J. Tranter, and Guy M. Robinson. 2000. Australia and NewZealand: Economy, Society and Environment. London: Arnold.

Mannion, A. M. 2002. Dynamic World: Land-cover and Land-use Change. London:Arnold.

National Land and Water Resources Audit. 2001. Australian Native VegetationAssessment 2001. Canberra: CSIRO.

———. 2001. Landscape Health in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority. 2000. NSW State of theEnvironment 2000. Sydney: NSW EPA.

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 2002. Sectors/Animals. Available atwww.maf.govt.nz (accessed November 26, 2002).

———. 2002. Sectors/Horticulture. Available at www.maf.govt.nz (accessed November26, 2002).

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2001. Forestry Sector Issues.Wellington: MAF.

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 1997. The State of New Zealand’sEnvironment. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1998. Australia:Environmental Performance Review. Paris: OECD.

Population Action International. 2000. People in the Balance: Population and NaturalResources at the Turn of the Millennium. Washington, DC: PAI.

Population Reference Bureau. 2002. “2002 World Population Data Sheet.”Washington, DC: PRB.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 1998. Pacific Island Populations. Noumea: SPC.

Statistics New Zealand. Available at http://www.stats.govt.nz/ (accessed February2003).

Toyne, P. 1994. The Reluctant Nation: Environment, Law, and Politics in Australia.Sydney: ABC.

Ueki, Minoru F. 2000.“Eco-Consciousness and Development in Palau.” ContemporaryPacific 12 (fall).

UN Development Programme. 1996. The State of Human Settlements and Urban-ization in the Pacific Islands. Suva, Fiji: UNDP.

———. 1999. Pacific Human Development Report 1999: Creating Opportunities. Suva,Fiji: UNDP.


UN Environment Programme. 1999. Pacific Islands Environment Outlook. Available atwww.unep.org (accessed December 2002).

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment2000. Rome: FAO.

Von Strokirch, Karin. 2002. “The Region in Review: International Issues and Events2001.” Contemporary Pacific 14 (fall).

Wilderness Society. 2003. “Queensland Clears over 1 Million Hectares of Bushland in2 Years.” January 24. Available at http://www.wilderness.org.au/projects/Woodlands/lc_crisis.html (accessed February 2003).

World Wide Fund for Nature Australia. 2001. Greening the 2001 Agenda: PriorityEnvironmental Initiatives for Commonwealth Government 2002–2005. WWF-Australia, July.


2

Biodiversity—A. M. M A N N I O N

Oceania—defined here as the continent nation of Australia, New Zealand,and twenty-two other island countries and territories sprinkled over more

than 40 million square kilometers (15.5 million square miles) of the SouthPacific—is the most fragmented of all the continental regions; its unique com-bination of continental landmass, linked island groups, and isolated islands isthe product of a varied geological history influenced by the splitting and clash-ing of geological plates, the ups and downs of global temperatures, the influ-ence of marine processes, and of coral island and reef formation. These factorshave exerted tremendous influence on Oceania’s biodiversity—the number ofspecies of flora, fauna, and insects occupying an ecosystem, country, continent,or other defined region. Temperate forests and grasslands, tropical vegetationcommunities such as savanna (a combination of grass-dominated groundcover with trees and shrubs at various densities), deserts, rain forests, and wet-lands are all represented across Oceania, as are alpine environments inAustralia and New Zealand. The current state of all of these ecosystems reflectsthe influence of climate over millions of years, notably annual temperature andprecipitation regimes, as well as centuries of human activity.

Because of their relative isolation, Australia, New Zealand, and the thou-sands of other islands of the South Pacific have served as incubators for a richtapestry of biodiversity featuring the planet’s highest levels of endemism—species found nowhere else in the world—per unit of land area or number ofhuman inhabitants (UN Environment Programme, 1999). Avian and marsu-pial species in Oceania, for example, are among the most abundant andunique on the entire planet, and in Southwest Australia, nearly 80 percent ofthe approximately 5,500 plant species found in the region exist nowhere else.Papua New Guinea’s Lake Kutubu contains 11 endemic fishes within itsboundaries, while 75 percent of New Caledonia’s 3,250 vascular plant species(ferns, flowering plants, and trees) are endemic in nature (Jaensch, 1996). In

25

New Zealand, meanwhile, 88 percent of its 35 native freshwater fish species areendemic in nature (Conservation International, 2002). Similar examples ofhigh endemism abound all across this region. Moreover, the full extent of thePacific region’s stunning array of terrestrial and marine biodiversity remainsunknown; it has been estimated that only a fraction of the region’s totalspecies have thus far been identified (South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, 1992).

But many of the habitats upon which this biological wealth depend forsustenance are under considerable stress from unsustainable forms of devel-opment and exploitation. Indeed, the forests and coasts of Oceania have ex-perienced widespread alteration, primarily for agriculture, logging, mineralextraction, and urbanization. It has been estimated, for example, that Oceaniahas lost almost 80 percent of its frontier forests, and that three-quarters ofwhat remains is under moderate or high pressure from human activity(Bryant, 1997). As a result of these widespread habitat alterations, somespecies have been driven to extinction and many others are now vulnerableor endangered.

Monitoring and Protecting Biodiversity in OceaniaAcross Oceania, there is considerable regional variation in the amount of bio-diversity research that has been undertaken. Consequently, it is difficult tofully ascertain the number of extant, extinct, and threatened plant and animalspecies across Oceania’s vast realm. Indeed, the full extent of species endan-germent and loss can only be gauged in countries where systematic surveyshave taken place. But investment in research efforts has increased in recentyears, and the region’s high level of biodiversity and concentration of endemicspecies has made it a focus of research and conservation activism among in-ternational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

For example, Micronesia and Polynesia—an area of more than 1,400 is-lands (including eleven nations, eight territories, and the U.S. state of Hawaii)scattered across a 21.6-million-square-kilometer (8.3-million-square-mile)expanse of the southern Pacific Ocean—is known to hold at least 6,557 plantspecies and 342 terrestrial vertebrate species (Conservation International,2002). Australia, meanwhile, is home to an estimated 1,900 animal species,including 700 distinct reptile species (World Conservation MonitoringCentre, 1992). And New Zealand holds 2,300 plant species (81 percent ofwhich are endemic) and entirely endemic populations of reptiles (61 species),amphibians (4 species), and mammals (3 species) (Conservation Inter-national, 2002).


Historically,activism in behalf of habitat

and species conservation and protection

goals has focused on the aesthetic,

spiritual,and cultural benefits associated

with biodiversity preservation. In New

Zealand, for example, it has been

observed that “we are shaped by . . .

symbols of our natural environment and

our relationship to it—whether by

cabbage trees or kahikatea forest,weta

or whitebait.We would be impoverished

Kiwis indeed if our national icons went

the way of the huia and the moa [extinct

species formerly native to New Zealand]”

(New Zealand Department of

Conservation,2000).

But increasingly,conservationists are

touting the economic value of

protecting biological wealth and

preserving healthy ecosystems.For

example,one study found that the total

annual value provided by New Zealand’s

indigenous biodiversity could be more

than double the value of the country’s

gross domestic product (Patterson and

Cole,1999).According to this analysis,

the total annual value of indigenous

biodiversity on New Zealand land

amounted to $46 billion.This total

included $9 billion in direct value (food

and raw materials from agriculture and

horticulture and timber from forests); $7

billion from “passive values”(value of

future use options,value of biodiversity

to future generations,and value of

biodiversity preservation for its own

sake); and $30 billion from indirect uses

of ecosystem services provided—free of

charge—by healthy flora and fauna,such

as production of food,purification of

water, regulation of regional and global

climate,and provision of pollination and

pest control. In addition,the value of the

ecosystem services provided by New

Zealand’s marine ecosystems was placed

at $184 billion annually.The estimated

total annual value of indigenous

biodiversity thus reached $230 billion in

the mid-1990s; by comparison,total

gross domestic product for the country

during the same period was less than

$90 billion annually.

Moreover, it is widely acknowledged

that human communities currently

make use of only a small portion of the

biological resources that surround

them.“New Zealand’s biodiversity

represents a pool of untapped

opportunities,”contended the country’s

Department of Conservation in its 2000

report, New Zealand’s Biodiversity

Strategy.“Like the endemic sponge,

discovered off the Kaikoura coast, that

produces a cancer-fighting substance,

there are almost certainly other species

with potentially useful and

commercially valuable compounds.

Scientists believe that most of these

have not yet been discovered.”

Sources:New Zealand Department of

Conservation. 2000. The New Zealand

Biodiversity Strategy. Wellington:

Department of Conservation.

Patterson, M., and A. Cole. 1999. Assessing

the Value of New Zealand’s Biodiversity.

Occasional Paper Number 1, School of

Resource and Environmental Planning,

Massey University (February).

Placing a Dollar Value on Biodiversity

The fortunes of the multitudes of tree, shrub, mammal, bird, reptile, andfish species that currently exist in Oceania fall along a vast spectrum. Many areundoubtedly thriving, enjoying robust health in largely unspoiled habitat. Butothers are being pushed down the path toward extinction by pollution, habitatloss, or predation by invasive species. Australia, which has by far the largest ter-restrial holdings in the region—and comparatively extensive environmentalresearch programs—contains many of Oceania’s known threatened species. Ithas 537 species formally recognized in the World Conservation Union-IUCNRed Book of Threatened Species as threatened within its borders, includingmammals (63 species), plants (35), birds (37), reptiles (38), amphibians (35),and mollusks (175). Other nations within Oceania with large numbers ofthreatened species include Papua New Guinea (266 species, including 142plant species and 58 mammal species); New Caledonia (244 species, including214 plant species); New Zealand (125 species, including 63 bird species); FrenchPolynesia (108 species, including 47 plant species and 23 bird species); and Fiji(92 species, including 65 plant species) (World Conservation Union, 2002).The UN Environment Programme, meanwhile, has described the biologicaldiversity of the Pacific Islands as a whole as “among the most critically threat-ened in the world” (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

In recognition of the growing threat to their natural heritages, virtually allof Oceania’s governments have issued formal conservation objectives. In ad-dition, many nations in Oceania are signatories to international conventionsfocused on species or habitat conservation, including the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of 1973, the TropicalForestry Action Plan (TFAP) of 1985, and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD), which requires nations to develop a national biodiversitystrategy. The nations of Oceania are signatories to the CBD, so each has acommitment to improve existing laws and enact new legislation to protectbiodiversity and associated habitat.

Of course, these goals have to be reconciled with other priorities, such asthe provision of food, employment, and housing for human communities.For large states of Oceania such as Australia and New Zealand, such conserva-tion efforts are often fraught with difficulties stemming from political, social,and economic considerations, but the conservation challenges for small islandnations are perhaps even more daunting, since the margin of error in protect-ing species is so slim. Moreover, setting aside protected areas that nourish vul-nerable plants and animals is difficult because of limited land area andcompeting land use demands. Nonetheless, many Pacific Island states have setaside lands for conservation, including several protected areas that are inter-nationally recognized for their importance in biodiversity preservation.


Regional Biodiversity TrendsThe islands of Oceania have distinct floral and faunal communities with highrates of endemism—a reflection of geological history, isolation from otherecosystems, and adaptation to a range of microhabitats. But maintaining theecological integrity of wilderness systems is a challenge for all states, and espe-cially for the larger islands, which harbor the overwhelming majority ofOceania’s endemic and endangered species.

AustraliaIn 2001, Australia’s National Land and Water Resources Audit produced theAustralian Native Vegetation Assessment, which gives a detailed account of thenation’s vegetation communities. Some twenty-three major vegetation groupshave been recognized based on the species present and the community struc-ture (for example, open or closed canopy forests). The most widespreadspecies are those of acacia and eucalyptus, which form open and closedforests, woodlands, shrublands, and some grasslands. These groups occupyapproximately 36 percent of the land mass, while hummock grasslands, thesecond most important vegetation type, occupy 26 percent, predominantly inthe country’s arid interior. In terms of human impact, aboriginal peoples in-fluenced Australia’s natural vegetation cover through the extensive use of fire(wildfires have also been an important historical factor in shaping vegetationdynamics). More recently, European settlers who arrived in Australia in thelate 1700s harnessed fire to clear land for farming.

The arrival of Europeans marked a major turning point in Australia’s envi-ronmental and cultural history. Not only did Europeans begin to transformlarge tracts of forests and grasslands into arable fields and pastures, a processthat accelerated after the 1830s, but they also introduced many plant and ani-mal species that have competed with native species and in some cases driventhem to extinction. Since European annexation the major impact has beenthe alteration of land cover for agriculture, especially in the southeast, thesouth, and the southwest, mainly for wool and cereal production (Young,1996). Other impacts include mining and urbanization, but those forces arerelatively minor in scope. All told, it is estimated that native vegetation hasbeen cleared from approximately 13 percent of Australia’s total land sur-face—a misleading percentage, since much of the country’s interior isdesert—and most areas of plant life that remain near populated areas havebeen highly modified and fragmented (National Land and Water ResourcesAudit, 2001). For example, 45 percent of Australia’s heathlands that existedprior to European settlement have been cleared, primarily for farming andgrazing, as have one-third of the country’s tall open eucalyptus forests—the

Biodiversity 29

latter lost to logging, grazing, and dam projects (National Land and WaterResources Audit, 2001). Indeed, the continent has lost more than 80 percentof its original frontier forest, including significant expanses of species-rich,unique forest types. Today, Australia’s remaining frontier forests are confinedalmost exclusively to Tasmania, Cape York, and the northwestern region(Bryant, 1997).

Australia is justly proud of the rich array of fauna that still can be foundroaming its reefs, deserts, and skies. It leads the world in terms of the range ofsnake and lizard species, and its many endemic bird species include theemu—the world’s second largest flightless bird—and some 55 parrot species,20 percent of the world total. The country supports no large carnivores, andthe kangaroo is the largest herbivore.

But while some species continue to thrive or maintain stable populations,others have suffered dramatic declines. Since European settlement, severalbird and mammal species exclusive to Australia have become extinct, includ-ing the lesser bilby and several species of hopping mice and hare wallabies.Many other animals are on the brink of extinction, from tree frogs to skinks.At the close of the twentieth century, Australia held 38 threatened plantspecies (5 critically endangered species, 7 endangered species, and 26 vulner-able species) and 499 threatened animal species (49 critically endangered,119 endangered, and 331 vulnerable species) (World Conservation Union,


The emu is one of many endemic bird species in Australia. COREL

2002), in addition to 35 animal species believed to have gone extinct since1500. “The conservation status of many components of terrestrial biodiver-sity [in Australia] remains disturbing,” concluded the Australian Departmentof the Environment and Heritage. “Some 8 percent of Australia’s higherplants, 14 percent of birds, 23 percent of marsupials, 8 percent of reptiles, 18percent of amphibians and 9 percent of freshwater fish are extinct, endan-gered, or vulnerable at the national level. Australia’s record of mammalspecies extinctions is the worst of any country. In the 1800s and 1900s,Australia has lost ten species of the original marsupial fauna of 144 speciesand eight of the 53 species of native rodents” (Australia State of the Environ-ment Committee, 2001).

There are two major reasons for this loss of biodiversity: habitat loss andfragmentation from the clearance of native vegetation, and the introductionof alien plant and animal species that have wreaked havoc on delicately bal-anced ecosystems. The rate of land clearance has accelerated across Australiain recent decades, with as much land cleared during the past half-century as inthe 150 years before 1945. In 1999 alone, it was estimated that Australian gov-ernments granted permits for the clearing of more than 1 million hectares ofvegetation, much of it essential to regional ecosystems (ibid.). In addition tothis large-scale land conversion, Australia has acquired an estimated 2,200 ex-otic plants that have become naturalized in the country’s soil, including black-berry, gorse, lantana, mesquite, mimosa, and athel pine. Some of these plantswere deliberately introduced, such as the radiata pine for the establishment ofplantations in the southeast; others were introduced accidentally—for exam-ple, as unnoticed cargo on ships laden with crops from Europe. A number ofthese alien species have left a pronounced mark on the environment. Theprickly acacia, for example, was introduced from Africa to provide shade andfodder in dry grasslands, but it is now crowding out native grasses (Williamsand West, 2000). Introduced animals, meanwhile, include the rabbit, fox,camels, cane toad, deer, and water buffalo, and domesticated animals such asthe cat. The impact of some of these species has been largely benign, but oth-ers have had significant ramifications for endemic species. Feral cats, for in-stance, have been widely blamed for declines in the populations of theendangered numbat and other small mammals in southwest Australia.

Southwest Australia is touted as both the richest and the most vulnerableregion for biodiversity in the country. Designated by ConservationInternational as one of the world’s twenty-five “Biodiversity Hotspots,” theprovince has a Mediterranean climate that nurtures nearly 5,500 species ofplants, almost 80 percent of which are exclusive to the region. In addition, 80percent of the region’s 30 amphibian species and 26 percent of its 191 reptilespecies are endemic in nature. In terms of endangered animals, the total

Biodiversity 31

Table 2.1 Introduced Mammals That Have Established Persistent WildPopulations in Australia

Common name Reason for introduction Status

Indian palm squirrel zoo release sparse, one isolated population

Black rat commensal abundant, widespread

Brown rat commensal common, major coastal cities

House mouse commensal abundant, widespread

Dingo commensal common, widespread except Tasmania and pastoral region

Feral dog commensal common, usually near centers of humanpopulation

Red fox hunt abundant, widespread except for northernAustralia

Domestic cat commensal abundant, widespread

European rabbit hunt abundant, widespread except for northernAustralia

European hare hunt common, southeast Australia

Feral horse draught, abundant, northern and central transport Australia

Feral donkey draught abundant, western and common centraland western Australia

Arabian camel draught, sparse, central western Australiatransport

Fallow deer hunt rare, isolated populations, easternAustralia, common Tasmania

Hog deer hunt sparse, isolated populations,southeast Australia

Axis deer (Chital) hunt common, limited to one isolated population, northeast Australia

Indian sambar hunt common, isolated populations, southeastand northern Australia

Rusa deer hunt rare, limited to a few local populations

Red deer hunt common, limited to scattered local populations

Feral goat meat, milk abundant, widespread except for northernand cental Australia

Water buffalo draught, meat common, limited to northern Australia

Banteng draught common, limited to northern Australia

Feral cattle meat common, northern and western Australia

Zebu draught, meat common, limited to northern Australia

Feral pig meat abundant, eastern Australia

SOURCE: ABS data used with permission from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://abs.gov.au.Australia’s Environment: Issues and Facts (Cat. No. 4140.0, p. 37)

number is small compared with some other parts of the world. But conserva-tionists contend that each species lost makes the world a little more barren.For example, only five reptile species found in southwest Australia are classi-fied as threatened, but one of these is the western swamp turtle, which, withan estimated wild population of fewer than 100, is possibly the most endan-gered freshwater turtle on the planet (Conservation International, 2002). Aswith most other corners of Australia, chief threats to biodiversity and habitatin southwest Australia include agricultural development, mining and otherextractive industries, and invasive species.

Australia has taken a number of steps to protect biodiversity in its south-west quadrant and elsewhere, including the designation of national parks andreserves as well as internationally recognized world heritage sites and bios-phere reserves. But these protected areas shield relatively small percentages ofthe country’s wild habitat. For instance, only 7.3 percent of Australia’s tropicalforests and 14 percent of its temperate forests enjoy formal protection(Mackay, 2002). Australia’s 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Actis supposed to ensure that stringent conditions apply to any proposed devel-opment that may affect the habitats of threatened or migratory species. Suchlegislation injects environmental considerations into a wide range of policyareas. Continued intercontinental trade, however, is expected to further ex-pose Australia to the inadvertent introduction of plant and animal species.

New ZealandNew Zealand’s diverse landscape supports a rich and wonderful variety of floraand fauna, from the world’s only flightless parrot (kakapo) to a species of frogthat lays eggs that hatch adult frogs (Leiopelma species). A vast island that wasonce a part of the ancient supercontinent Gondwanaland, New Zealand’s longisolation from other land masses bestowed upon it a high degree of endemismin plants, birds, and reptiles. Its biological diversity was further shaped by evo-lutionary adjustments made by species so that they could exist in the variousecozones present across the island, from rugged ocean coastlines to subtropi-cal forests to mountain meadows. As a result of these factors, “a collection ofbiological oddities has evolved. They include giant flightless weevils, flightlesscrickets, which include the world’s most massive insects, giant carnivorousland snails, the world’s most anatomically primitive frogs, the world’s largestgecko, tiny flightless wrens, one of the largest eagles that ever lived, and anarray of huge, plant-eating flightless birds—the moa” (Mansfield, 1996).Today, these creatures exist in highly distinctive ecosystems that range fromthe braided river systems of the eastern South Island to the kauri forests of thenorthern North Island (New Zealand Department of Conservation, 2000).

Biodiversity 33

New Zealand’s biodiversity also has been shaped by its long history of set-tlement, first by Polynesians and later by Europeans. Both of these groups al-tered the land to suit themselves in numerous ways, large and small. Today, thecumulative impact of these modifications is plain to see. Temperate rainforests once covered 85 percent of the archipelago, but these have been re-duced to approximately 20 percent of their former extent. Indeed, only 59,400square kilometers (about 22,900 square miles)—22 percent of New Zealand’stotal land area—remains in its original state (Conservation International,2002). Much of the country’s remaining wilderness is limited to remote areassuch as the southwest of the South Island, a mountainous region with a fjord-studded coastline that has much more economic value as a tourist destinationthan as a site for agricultural or logging. Its biologically rich marsh and low-land areas, conversely, have been reduced to fragmented islands adrift in a seaof agricultural and industrial development and human settlements. “The his-tory of people on these islands [of the New Zealand archipelago] has beenbrief but enormously destructive,” summarized one analysis. “Destruction ofthe New Zealand bird fauna is so comprehensive, the ornithologist ProfessorJared Diamond once declared that New Zealand no longer has a bird fauna—just the wreckage of one” (Mansfield, 1996).

New Zealand is also grappling with a serious exotic species problem. Theannexation of New Zealand by Great Britain in 1840 triggered an influx ofEuropean immigration and the establishment of trade with Europe. This de-velopment, as well as the development of subsequent trade links withAustralia and the Pacific Rim countries, introduced numerous exotic speciesto New Zealand’s shores. Indeed, the governing bodies of both New Zealandand Australia encouraged so-called acclimatization societies, which fosteredthe introduction of familiar homeland species. Europeans opened the flood-gates, bringing not only plants and animals for agriculture, horticulture, andforestry but also weeds and ornamentals.

It has been acknowledged that some introduced species have actually per-formed beneficial ecological services. For example, the banksia plant is a foodsource for native birds; the gorse scrub serves as a nursery for native plantseedlings; and blackbirds and some other introduced birds have become im-portant dispersers of indigenous plant seeds. But examples of environmentalloss directly attributable to invasive species are numerous, and in manyplaces they threaten to overwhelm native ecosystems. “New Zealand now hasthe highest number of introduced mammals of any country in the world andthe second highest number of introduced birds. In the case of vascularplants, we now have more introduced species in the wild than native ones”


Biodiversity 35

(New Zealand Department of Conservation, 2000). Examples of plants nowconsidered environmental weeds include hawkweed, a problem in SouthIsland’s tussock grasslands; heather, which was deliberately planted in tus-sock grasslands to provide a habitat for grouse; and lodgepole pine, intro-duced to afforest upland slopes for erosion control. Transplanted animalpests that have caused damage to native ecosystems include possums, goats,deer, rats, stoats, and feral cats. The Australian brush-tailed possum has beena particularly notorious invader; with no true predators (except humans) tocheck its population growth, it has developed into a voracious consumer ofplants, bird eggs, land snails, and small invertebrates (World Wide Fund forNature and World Conservation Union, 1995; Towns and Ballantine, 1993).“Introduced biodiversity is neither all ‘good’ nor all ‘bad’; threats or benefitsof individual introduced species most often depend on the situation in whichthey arise,” admitted the New Zealand government. “[But] collectively, inva-sive pests pose the greatest single threat to our remaining natural ecosystemsand habitats and threatened native species” (New Zealand Department ofConservation, 2000).

Together, the twin forces of habitat destruction and introduction of inva-sive species, in combination with other human actions, have led to the extinc-tion of a stunning number of species over the past 800 years, including 32percent of indigenous land and freshwater birds; 18 percent of sea birds; atleast 12 invertebrates such as snails and insects; 1 species of fish; 1 species ofbat; and 3 distinct species of frog. In addition, another 1,000 plant, animal,and fungi species across New Zealand have already vanished from placeswhere they were once found, a pattern that typically precedes total species ex-tinction. Finally, researchers believe that many presently unknown species(such as marine or invertebrate animals) may be extinguished before they areeven discovered (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997). All ofthese factors led Conservation International to designate the New Zealand ar-chipelago as one of the planet’s twenty-five significant “biodiversity hotspots”(Conservation International, 2002).

Currently, New Zealand supports approximately 2,300 known vascularplants (including ferns, flowering plants, and trees). These represent a rela-tively low level of diversity, but 81 percent are endemic, including 35 genera ofplants (a taxonomic grouping larger than a family but smaller than a species)found nowhere else in the world. Plants of particular note include the fernLoxoma cunninghamii, described as one of the earth’s “living fossils” becauseit, along with three species from Central America, constitute a family of fernsclosely related to those that existed some 60 million years ago (Conservation

The tuatara lizard is the sole survivor of a group of reptiles that flourished 150 million years ago in the

Mesozoic era in the South Pacific islands of New Zealand. JAMES L. AMOS/CORBIS

International, 2002). Researchers in New Zealand estimate that more than 300plant species are currently under threat, including 199 higher plant speciesand 85 lower plant species (with subspecies and varieties accounting for theremaining 18) (New Zealand Department of Conservation, 2002). The WorldConservation Union-IUCN’s 2002 Red List of Threatened Species, meanwhile,formally lists 21 plants in New Zealand as endangered.

Faunal biodiversity in New Zealand is also low in comparison with conti-nental regions, but the country has high levels of endemism. “Both species ofNew Zealand bat are endemic, as are all four frogs, all 60 reptiles, more than 90percent of insects and a similar percentage of marine molluscs . . . and a quar-ter of all bird species. In contrast, Great Britain, which separated from conti-nental Europe only 10,000 years ago, has only two endemic species: one plantand one animal. Half a dozen islands in the Hauraki Gulf have a greater levelof endemism than the whole of Britain” (New Zealand Department of Con-servation, 2000). Many of these species are typified by stable or growing pop-ulations. But others have suffered from the impact of exotic species, habitatloss, pollution, and other factors. Indeed, the IUCN 2002 Red List of Threat-ened Species in New Zealand includes 8 mammals, 63 birds, 11 reptiles, 1 am-phibian, 8 fishes, and 5 mollusks.

Despite its problems, however, New Zealand still remains a rich repositoryof biodiversity. Its biological wealth includes more than 100 species of en-demic flightless crickets, the largest fauna of lizards on any temperate archi-pelago, breeding grounds for 75 percent of the world’s penguin species, morethan half of the world’s albatrosses, and half of the world’s petrels, prions, andshearwaters (Mansfield, 1996; Towns et al., 1990).

New Zealand has also exhibited a heightened awareness of biodiversityconservation issues in the last half-century. The country’s first laws pertainingto conservation were passed in the 1860s, though they prohibited the huntingof birds and fish introduced from Europe. The first law to protect indigenousspecies was the Wild Birds Protection Act of 1864; various other laws to pro-tect specific types of wildlife were enacted between 1875 and 1950, and allwere brought together with the Wildlife Act of 1953. During this time manynational parks and reserves were established. In the late 1990s New Zealandformally acknowledged the protection of indigenous habitats and biologicaldiversity as one of its eleven most important environmental issues. Towardthese goals, the government developed the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy,which was unveiled in 2000. Important components of this strategy includethe Department of Conservation, the main government agency responsiblefor biodiversity and its conservation, and the extensive network of terrestrialand marine protected areas it oversees.

Biodiversity 37

The thylacine was one of the most

unusual animals to roam the Australian

continent in modern history.The formal

name of the species, Thylacinus

cynocephalus, was taken from Greek

words meaning “pouched dog.” It was

more widely known as the Tasmanian

tiger or Tasmanian wolf, though human

struggles to classify it also led to the

nicknames zebra wolf and opossum

hyena.The thylacine was a carnivorous

marsupial weighing about 65 pounds,

with a short brown coat and black

stripes along its back. Although its

closest living relatives were fellow

marsupials like kangaroos and

opossums, it evolved as a predator with

behavior more like that of a wolf. Its

range once included all of Australia, but

in modern times it thrived mainly on

the island of Tasmania, where it hunted

wallabies and other grazing species.

The demise of the thylacine began

with the arrival of European settlers in

Tasmania in the early 1800s.Viewing the

Tasmanian tiger as a threat to their

introduced flocks of sheep, these

settlers relentlessly trapped, shot, and

poisoned every one they could find.The

Tasmanian government sponsored an

extermination program beginning in

the 1840s that had paid more than

2,000 bounties by 1900 (“Revive the

Extinct Tasmanian Tiger—through

Cloning?”2002).The thylacine

population was further reduced by a

loss of habitat as land was cleared for

agriculture and grazing. As a result of

these factors, the species was virtually

wiped out within a century.The last

known thylacine died in captivity in

Hobart,Tasmania, in 1936, just two

months after the Tasmanian

government afforded legal protection

to the species.

Although the thylacine has been

extinct for many years, it remains a

popular symbol in Australia; its likeness

appears on items from license plates to

beer labels and sports team logos.The

thylacine attracted global interest in

1999, when the Australian Museum in

Sydney announced its intention to

resurrect the species through cloning.

The museum’s collection included a

female baby thylacine that had been

taken from its mother’s pouch in 1866

and preserved in a jar of alcohol. A team

of scientists was able to recover

surprisingly good DNA samples from

the specimen, to which it added DNA

from two other preserved pups in 2001.

They planned to sequence thylacine

DNA (have the genetic code “read”in

the proper order by a sophisticated

computer) in hopes of someday

creating a living clone and perhaps

even a breeding population of the long-

dead species.

Researchers admit that they face

long odds in creating a living creature;

one molecular biologist gave the

project a 30 percent chance of success

over the next 200 years (Weidensaul,

2002).They made an important

breakthrough in May 2002, however,

Reversing Extinction through Cloning:The Case of the Tasmanian Tiger

(continues)

when they successfully replicated

thylacine genes using a process called

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). But

the biggest obstacles still lie ahead.

Current methods of cloning, which have

been used to produce clones of

livestock, require a living cell to be

inserted into a host egg from which all

genetic material is removed. Of course,

no living cells exist for extinct species

like the thylacine. In this case, scientists

must fill in the gaps in thylacine DNA

with that of other marsupials to create

artificial chromosomes.This cloning

technique is beyond the ability of

today’s science and is expected to

remain so for the foreseeable future.

The efforts of the Australian

Museum to bring the thylacine back

from extinction sparked a heated

debate that involved scientists, ethicists,

and conservationists. Opponents of the

cloning experiment argued that its

huge expense (sequencing the

thylacine genome alone was expected

to cost $15 million) drained money

from more important government

programs, including efforts to protect

endangered species that are not yet

extinct.They also claimed that cloning

was impossible for the species because

no living animal is a close enough

relative for a successful surrogate birth.

Some ethicists said that resurrecting a

long-dead creature was an immoral

exercise and berated researchers for

“playing God.”Some conservationists

worried that if the program were

ultimately successful, it would only

create another endangered species in a

world that is already full of them.They

also wondered whether successful

cloning of the thylacine might serve to

reduce public concern about

endangered species, by convincing

people that the species can always be

brought back from extinction later.

Supporters of the cloning effort

argued that mankind was morally

obligated to restore the thylacine and

other extinct species if it became

scientifically feasible.Some scientists

noted that sequencing the thylacine DNA

was an important exercise in itself,

because it would allow valuable

comparisons to be made with the

genetic codes of living marsupials, like

the Tasmanian devil and numbat.

Conservationists also have claimed that

reintroduction of the thylacine would

provide a needed capstone predator in

Tasmanian ecosystems.Finally,museum

representatives said that the cloning

effort would help improve Australia’s

scientific reputation.“To actually reverse

extinction would be the biological

equivalent of the first walk on the moon,”

said Australian Museum director Michael

Archer (“Revive the Extinct Tasmanian

Tiger—through Cloning?”2002).

As the cloning program proceeds

for the legendary Tasmanian tiger,

projects to clone extinct and

endangered species are also underway

in other parts of the world.Targeted

imperiled and extinct species include

the gaur, a wild ox once found in India

and Southeast Asia; the Asiatic cheetah,

which is found in small numbers in Iran;

and the giant pandas of China. In

addition, Oxford University scientists

have sequenced the genome of two

(continues)

Papua New GuineaOne of the largest nations in the Pacific, the total landmass of Papua NewGuinea is 85 percent mainland, with its 600 satellite islands composing the re-maining 15 percent. Once a part of the ancient continent of Gondwanaland,Papua New Guinea is now the most biologically diverse country in Melanesia.Its vegetation communities include tropical moist (rain) forests and wetlands.The former are varied in structure and composition because of marked altitu-dinal contrasts that give rise to variations in soil, rainfall, and annual temper-ature regimes.

Papua New Guinea houses 5 to 7 percent of the world’s biodiversity, witha high proportion of endemics, on less than 1 percent of its total land area(Papua New Guinea Department of Environment and Conservation, 1995).Indeed, it is ranked fifteenth in terms of absolute diversity and eleventhwhen country size is considered (World Conservation Monitoring Centre,2002). Approximately 40 percent of Papua New Guinea’s original forestcover remains, despite a long history of shifting cultivation and a high inci-dence of natural fire (Bryant, 1997). This is the largest intact tropical forestin the Asia-Pacific region and the third-largest in the world after theAmazon and Congo basins. It is also the cornerstone of much of the coun-try’s biological wealth, from its 75 species of bat and 71 species of marsupialsto 56 endemic butterfly species, including the Queen Alexandra birdwing,the world’s largest butterfly. But mining operations, agricultural clearing,


extinct species of moa—flightless birds

once found in New Zealand—in hopes

of someday resurrecting them.

Sources:2002. The End of Extinction: Cloning the

Tasmanian Tiger (documentary film).

The Discovery Channel, July 7.

Paddle, Robert. 2000. The Last Tasmanian

Tiger:The History and Extinction of the

Thylacine. Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press.

2002.“Revive the Extinct Tasmanian

Tiger—through Cloning?”Christian

Science Monitor, July 11.

2002.“Tasmanian Tiger Cloning

Breakthrough.”Australian Museum

Online, May 28. Available at http://

www.austmus.gov.au/thylacine/news

release.htm.

Weidensaul, Scott. 2002.“Raising the

Dead.”Audubon (May–June).

Biodiversity 41

and clear-cut logging threaten much of the remaining forests. Logging oper-ations have emerged as a particularly dire threat, as clear-cuts dismantlespecies-rich tropical forests and increase sediment loads carried by rivers tothe sea, where they degrade the quality of coastal and coral reef ecosystems(Bryant, 1997).

Like its neighbors, Papua New Guinea has its share of deliberately and acci-dentally introduced alien species. Plant invaders include the aquatic weedssalvinia and water hyacinth, both of which are widespread in Papua NewGuinea wetlands and rivers. In addition, 21 species of freshwater fish havebeen introduced, including several species of trout, though only half have be-come established; other introduced species include mollusks—for example,the giant African snail—insects such as parasitic wasps, and introduced mam-mals including the domestic dog and cat, pig, cattle, buffalo, goat, rat, variousspecies of deer, and horse.

The impact of invasive species, coupled with habitat loss and alterationcaused by development pressures and pollution, has been considerable.Indeed, all sectors of Papua New Guinea’s biological wealth have experiencedsevere attrition. According to the IUCN 2002 Red List of Threatened Species,Papua New Guinea is home to 266 threatened species (58 mammal species, 32bird species, 9 reptile species, 13 fish species, 2 mollusk species, 10 other inver-tebrate species, and 142 plant species).

Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, but it does not yet have a formal biodiversity strategy in place, orwell defined plans for forest exploitation. The forests constitute a major re-source, and their exploitation is the chief real and potential cause of biodi-versity loss. Timber harvesting in Papua New Guinea began in the earlytwentieth century—mainly in lowland forests—but it was not until the 1980sthat concerns about environmental damage and corruption at governmentlevel in relation to logging concessions were articulated. This led to a reviewof logging policies (the Barnett Commission) and the formulation of a NewNational Forest Policy by 1990. But despite sound intentions there remainsconsiderable cause for concern. Conservationists contend that Papua NewGuinea forests are still under the control of large, foreign-owned companiesthat are annually logging at least 125,000 hectares in unsustainable fashion.In addition, logging concessions continue to be approved in areas of highbiodiversity and in areas where the rights of indigenous people will be com-promised (Barry, 2002). These trends engender concerns that Papua NewGuinea’s forests will be ravaged in the same manner as those of Indonesiaand parts of Malaysia.

Australia’s geographic isolation helped

protect it against invasion by exotic

species of plants for centuries.When

Europeans arrived on the continent,

however, they brought with them a

variety of plants, both intentionally and

unintentionally. In fact, many of the

most troublesome weeds now found in

Australia were brought over

intentionally for use in gardens and

then escaped into the surrounding

bush. Lacking natural enemies to keep

them in check, some of these nonnative

species spread out of control. Over time,

such invasive species displace native

plants and animals, thus altering entire

ecosystems and threatening

biodiversity.

One of the most problematic weeds

in Australia is Mimosa pigra, commonly

known as the “giant sensitive plant”

because its leaves close up quickly

when touched.This woody plant, which

prefers a tropical climate with well-

defined wet and dry seasons, is native

to Central America but is now causing

problems in Africa and Southeast Asia

as well as in Australia. Mimosa pigra

grows in dense thickets up to six meters

(20 feet) tall that effectively prevent

light from reaching the ground below.

The species thus crowds out native

vegetation and communities of

animals.

Mimosa pigra is believed to have

been brought to Australia intentionally

prior to the 1890s. It apparently started

out as a display plant in the Darwin

Botanic Gardens in the Northern

Territory, where it remained for many

years. Even after it escaped to the wild,

the species did not become a nuisance

until a combination of factors assisted

its spread in the 1970s. A series of floods

carried the plant’s seeds—which remain

viable in water and can float—onto land

that had been severely degraded

through overgrazing and trampling of

the native vegetation by herds of feral

water buffalo (Beckmann, 1992).

Mimosa pigra soon proved itself to

be an ideal plant for these conditions. It

is fast-growing (achieving a growth rate

of up to 1 centimeter per day in

favorable conditions), produces

abundant seeds that mature quickly,

can survive drought and flood, and is

inedible to water buffalo and other

common animals of the region.The

species spread quickly across the

coastal floodplains of the Northern

Territory, eventually stretching over 450

kilometers (280 miles) from Western

Australia into Queensland.The worst

infestation occurred along the Adelaide

River. Mimosa pigra transformed the

species-rich tropical wetlands,

sedgelands, and grasslands of this

region into monospecific stands and

reduced the diversity of plant and

animal species found there.The weed

had a particularly harmful effect on

ducks, egrets, geese, magpies, lizards,

and other fauna that depended on

diverse woody plants, abundant grass

cover, or open sedgelands.

Invasive Weed Species Threatens Kakadu National Park

(continues)

As Mimosa pigra spread across the

northern reaches of Australia, scientists

grew concerned that the weed would

threaten the biodiversity of Kakadu

National Park, a World Heritage Site.

Thanks to its diverse geography and

habitat, Kakadu contains the richest

flora in the region. Some 1,700 species

of plants have been recorded there,

including 97 species that are

considered rare. In addition, Kakadu is

among the most weed-free parks in the

world; as of 1995, only 5.7 percent of the

plants found there were nonnative

(Environment Australia, 2002).

Mimosa pigra poses a significant

threat to Kakadu’s plant and animal life.

Experts estimate that the weed could

eventually become the dominant

species in 29 percent of the park’s

13,000 square kilometers (5,020 square

miles), and could become a significant

feature in an additional 54 percent. In

fact, only 17 percent of the protected

area is believed to contain habitat

unsuitable for Mimosa pigra.

Furthermore, the most severe damage

would likely occur in Kakadu’s wetlands,

which are home to numerous species of

birds that attract many of the park’s

visitors (Beckmann, 1992).

Park officials have developed a

management plan for Mimosa pigra and

other weeds,which are defined as “any

naturalized (established and

reproducing in the wild) plant that is not

native to Kakadu.”As part of this plan,

the park has employed four people full-

time since the 1980s to monitor and

eradicate invasive plant species.They

have managed to prevent Mimosa pigra

from gaining a permanent foothold

within the park’s boundaries through the

use of herbicides and biological controls.

As part of the efforts to control the

spread of Mimosa pigra in the Northern

Territory, scientists have studied the

plant and its natural predators in

Mexico.They discovered that more than

200 species of insects and several

species of fungi prey upon the plant in

its home range. As a result, Mimosa pigra

is not an aggressive invader in Central

America, but rather an interesting

addition to the local flora.

By the late 1990s, Australian officials

had introduced 11 new species (9

insects and 2 fungi) in hopes of finding

an effective biological control for

Mimosa pigra (Marko, 1999).The first

introductions, which took place in

1989, were of two species of stem-

boring moths from Mexico that kill

mature plants by tunneling into the

stems. One of these species,

Neurostrota guinniella, has become

established and spread throughout the

range of Mimosa pigra in Australia.The

moths have apparently had some

success in slowing the spread of the

weed, and experts hope that the other

introduced predators will provide

additional help in the near future.

Sources:Australian National Botanic Gardens.

“Environmental Weeds in Australia.”

Available at http://www.anbg.gov.au/

weeds/weeds.html (accessed

November 2002).

(continues)


New CaledoniaOriginally part of Gondwanaland,the thirty-six islands of the Frenchterritory of New Caledonia becameisolated 80 million years ago. Today,its main island of Grand Terre andthe smaller Loyalty Islands contain awealth of species diversity, includingnumerous species found nowhereelse in the world. Indeed, high levelsof endemism are present in NewCaledonia’s plant diversity (77 percentof its 3,332 known plant species), rep-tile diversity (86 percent of its 65species), and mammal diversity (67percent of its 9 species). But the terres-trial, marine, and freshwater habitatsthat support this abundance of life areunder pressure on a host of fronts,making it one of the world’s most vul-nerable centers of biodiversity (Con-servation International, 2002).

Four major terrestrial vegetationtypes are present in New Caledonia,as well as coastal mangroves. But only

5,200 square kilometers (2008 square miles) of vegetation—28 percent of theoriginal total—remain in generally unspoiled condition. Evergreen rainforests were once the most extensive, covering about 70 percent of the terri-tory’s land mass, but removal to facilitate open cast nickel mining—whichgenerates approximately 90 percent of the territory’s total foreign exchange—has relegated these forests to scattered patches in the mountainous interior.Indeed, unsustainable mining, hunting, and logging have been the chiefcauses of biodiversity loss in an island group that has historically made littleprovision for environmental protection and conservation. For example, thereare twenty-five reserves that cover only 527 square kilometers (203 squaremiles) out of a land area of 18,000 square kilometers (6,900 square miles). Inaddition, 83 percent of the territory’s threatened plant species are not foundin any of these protected areas (ibid.). Other factors in the erosion of NewCaledonia’s biological wealth include the intentional and accidental introduc-tion of alien species and illicit trade in endangered bird and marine species.

Beckmann, Roger. 1992.“Mimosa

pigra Threatens Kakadu.” In The

Unique Continent. Edited by

Jeremy Smith. Queensland,

Australia: University of

Queensland Press.

Environment Australia.“Kakadu

National Park: Plants, Animals,

Landforms.”Available at

http://www.ea.gov.au/parks/kak

adu/plantsanimalsland/plants.h

tml (accessed December 2002).

Lonsdale,W. M. 1993.“Rates of

Spread of an Invading Species:

Mimosa pigra in Northern

Australia.”Journal of Ecology 81.

Marko, Michelle. 1999.“Controlling

Invasion of the Exotic Shrub

Mimosa pigra in Tropical

Australian Wetlands.”

Restoration and Reclamation

Review. Available at

http://www.hort.agri.umn.edu/

h5015/99papers/marko.htm.

Biodiversity 45

VanuatuThis independent state comprises eighty-two islands, with Espiritu Santo andMalekule accounting for about half of the total land area of 1.219 millionhectares. These islands, which formed in the last 10 million years, featuremountainous interiors girded by coastal strips. There has been little clearancewhen compared with most other Pacific Islands states, and about 75 percentof the land remains covered in natural vegetation. Nonetheless, overall biolog-ical richness and endemism are modest when compared with the holdings ofother Pacific Island states (World Wide Fund for Nature, “Vanuatu RainForests,” 2002).

Agriculture and forestry are Vanuatu’s primary sources of employment andwealth generation. Agriculture is mainly subsistence in nature, comprisingyam and taro production, while commercial forestry is important in the moreaccessible lowland areas. According to the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization, the quality of the natural forests for commercial purposes islow, and much of the forest is inaccessible on account of steep terrain; bothcharacteristics are advantageous for habitat preservation. Local traditionshave also served to conserve Vanuatu’s natural heritage. Moreover, the govern-ment has compiled a National Forest Plan (NFP) that emphasizes sustainableresource use, and it is in the midst of formulating a Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan. Yet despite these positive factors, 23 species of flora and fauna inVanuatu have been classified in the IUCN 2002 Red List of Threatened Species,and that number will rise considerably if rising water levels associated withglobal warming submerge coastal habitats.

The Solomon IslandsThe Solomon Islands comprise six large volcanic islands in two parallel chainsand numerous small islands and atolls. There is much variation in biodiver-sity and human activity among the islands, most of which bristle with lowlandrain forests that support a variety of endemic flora and fauna. Of 47 mammalspecies found in the Solomon Islands, for instance, more than half (26) areendemic or near endemic. These include nine rodents and 17 bats, of whichthree of each are endangered. Of 199 bird species, 91 are of restricted rangeand 69 are endemic. Three bird species are classified as critically endangeredand 4 others as endangered (World Wild Fund for Nature, 2002).

The Solomon Islands’ high degree of endemism means that many speciesare susceptible to extinction as a result of competition from invasive species.An even greater threat, however, is habitat loss and degradation from unsus-tainable logging and shifting cultivation, both of which have been fueled byhigh rates of population growth. Both local and international concerns have


been raised about the high rate of logging, and a new Forest Act was passed in1999 to encourage sustainable practices. But monitoring and enforcement ofnew regulations have been limited, and the Solomon Islands have yet to offerformal protection to any of its land holdings.

Polynesia and MicronesiaConservation International has designated the islands of Micronesia andPolynesia (including Fiji) as one of the globe’s twenty-five biodiversityhotspots. These 1,400-plus islands dot 21.6 million square kilometers (8.3million square miles) of the southern Pacific—an area approximately 2.6times the size of the continental United States—but their total land areaamounts to only 46,000 square kilometers (17,760 square miles). In terms ofgeologic character, these tiny islands range from mangrove-ringed coastalwetlands to open woodlands and cloud forests. This diverse array of ecosys-tems—the hotspot contains twelve distinct vegetation biomes or ecosystemregions—has combined with the isolation of the islands to produce a startlingnumber of endemic species. But both endemic and more widely distributedspecies within this region are at risk from human-induced disturbance.Indeed, less than 21 percent of the region’s original vegetation remains in anatural state, and invasive species introduced by way of human activity havedisrupted numerous habitats (Conservation International, 2002).

More than 6,550 species of vascular plants are known to exist acrossPolynesia and Micronesia, of which 51 percent are endemic in nature. In addi-tion, 9 of the region’s 16 known mammal species are endemic, as are 174 ofthe area’s 254 bird species. Indeed, BirdLife International ranks Polynesia andMicronesia as the sixth-richest area of bird endemism in the world (Stat-tersfield, 1998). Endemic species also account for nearly 54 percent of the 69reptile species found in Polynesia and Micronesia, and all three amphibianspecies in this sector of the South Pacific are endemic. Finally, these waterssupport a high level of marine diversity. The waters off the tiny island nationof Palau, for example, contain 300 distinct species of coral and 7 species ofgiant clam. Endemism is also significant, especially in remote tropical waters(Conservation International, 2002).

As in other areas of Oceania, biodiversity on the islands of Micronesia andPolynesia has been adversely affected by human activities. According toConservation International, Polynesia and Micronesia contain 88 threatenedspecies of flora and fauna, with 24 species critically endangered. In addition, itreports that nearly 40 species have become extinct in the region since 1500,with bird species suffering disproportionate damage. In fact, BirdLifeInternational reports that 22 of the region’s endemic avian species disap-peared after the arrival of Europeans (ibid.; Stattersfield, 1998).

Biodiversity 47

Leading threats include unsustainable logging, clearing of land for agricul-tural purposes, and development for housing and transportation. “Small is-lands, because of their limited area, are heavily impacted by conversion ofnatural vegetation to anthropogenic landscapes. In many Pacific islands, thereis no natural lowland vegetation left, because the land is under such demandfrom human populations” (Conservation International, 2002). But many ob-servers believe that alien species constitute an even greater menace to nativecommunities of animals and plants. On the island of Guam, for example, thebrown tree snake was introduced a half-century ago. Since that time, it hasbeen directly linked to the extinction of nine native bird species and all en-demic lizard species on the island. In Tahiti, meanwhile, a South Americantree species, Miconia calvescens, has overwhelmed native vegetation and nowcovers 65 percent of the island (ibid.). Finally, the threat of sea level rise fromglobal warming constitutes a growing threat to biodiversity (and human pop-ulations) in this region, as many low-lying islands may ultimately disappearentirely beneath the waves.

FijiOn Fiji, all of the factors threatening biodiversity across the rest of Polynesiaand Micronesia can be seen in microcosm. The Republic of Fiji consists of 300islands, but two of them—Viti Levu and Vanua Levu—account for 87 percentof the total land area. The tropical forests of Fiji support rich fauna and florarelative to other oceanic island groups in the Pacific. Moreover, many speciesare exclusive to Fiji, including half of its plant species. Indeed, some speciesare endemic to specific islands, such as the orange, golden, and whistling fruitdoves, each of which is confined to a specific island group.

But these and other remarkable species face potential threats from a host ofhuman activities. Agriculture is a mainstay of the Fiji economy and employshalf the adult population; it has also transformed forested areas into arableland producing sugar cane, coconut, ginger, and tropical fruits. Indeed, agri-culture and associated forest exploitation is the leading cause of habitat andbiodiversity loss on Fiji’s two main islands.

Evidence from archaeological sites indicates that prior to human coloniza-tion the Fijian islands had a richer fauna (and probably flora) than they havenow. Many extinctions have already occurred, including that of a land croco-dile and a giant land iguana; the monkey bat, one of Fiji’s few mammalspecies, is considered to be critically endangered. Altogether, Fiji contains 92species known to be threatened, including 65 species of plants, 5 species ofmammals, 12 species of birds, and 6 species of reptiles (World ConservationUnion-IUCN, 2002). Fiji’s recent efforts to counteract declining species popu-lations have included creation of a protected area network and implementa-

tion of a formal biodiversity strategy and action plan. But analysts believe thatany effective conservation strategy will have to squarely address the unsus-tainable agricultural practices that currently prevail across Fiji.

Sources:Australia State of the Environment Committee. 2001. State of the Environment Aus-

tralia 2001. Canberra: Environment Australia/CSIRO.

Barry, G. 2002. An Analysis of Papua New Guinea’s Implementation of the Conventionon Biological Diversity with a Focus on Forests. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Fern.

Bryant, Dirk, D. Nielson, and L. Tangley. 1997. The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystemsand Economies on the Edge. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Conservation International. 2002. “Biodiversity Hotspots.” Available at www.biodiversityhotspots.org (accessed October 24, 2002).

Crisp, M. D., S. Laffan, H. P. Linder, and A. Monro. 2001. “Endemism in the AustralianFlora.” Journal of Biogeography 28.

Cronin L. 1989. The Concise Australian Flora. Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: NewHolland.

Davis, S. D., et al., eds. 1997. Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for TheirConservation. Cambridge, UK: WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature and WorldConservation Union-IUCN.

Environment Australia. 2002. Threatened Species and Ecological Communities. Avail-able at www.ea.gov.au (accessed November 1, 2002).

Jaensch, Roger. 1996. “An Overview of the Wetlands of Oceania.” In Wetlands,Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention. Edited by A. J. Hails. Gland, Switzer-land: Ramsar.

Mackay, Richard. 2002. The Atlas of Endangered Species. London: Earthscan.

Mansfield, Bill. 1996. “Ecosystem Restoration on Mainland New Zealand.” Paper de-livered at IUCN World Conservation Congress, Montreal, October 18.

Mittermeier, Russell A., Norman Myers, and Cristina Goettsch Mittermeier. 1999.Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Eco-regions. Washington, DC: CEMEX, Conservation International.

National Land and Water Resources Audit. 2001. Australia’s Native Vegetation. Can-berra: National Land and Water Resources Audit.

New Zealand Department of Conservation. 2000. The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy:Our Chance to Turn the Tide. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

———. 2002. National Parks. Available at www.doc.govt.nz (accessed November 3,2002).

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 1991. New Zealand’s National Report tothe United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Wellington:Ministry for the Environment.

———. 1997. The State of New Zealand’s Environment. Wellington: Ministry for theEnvironment.


Biodiversity 49

Papua New Guinea Department of Environment and Conservation, ConservationResource Centre, and the Africa Centre for Resources and Environment. 1995.Papua New Guinea Country Study on Biological Diversity. Waigani: Depart-ment of Environment and Conservation.

Samoa Department of Land Survey. 1998. National Report to the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity. Samoa: Government of Samoa.

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 1992. The Pacific Way: Pacific IslandDeveloping Countries’ Report to the United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank and UNDevelopment Programme.

Stattersfield, A. J., and D. R. Capper, eds. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. London:BirdLife International.

Stattersfield, A. J., et al. 1988. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for BiodiversityConservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

Towns, D. R., and W. J. Ballantine. 1993. “Conservation and Restoration of NewZealand Island Ecosystems.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, no. 8.

Towns, D. R., C. H. Daugherty, and I. A. E. Atkinson, eds. 1990. Ecological Restoration ofNew Zealand Islands. Wellington: New Zealand Department of Conservation.

UN Development Programme. 2002. The Federated States of Micronesia: NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. UNDP.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Pacific Islands Environmental Outlook. Availableat http://www.unep.org (accessed December 2002).

Williams, J. A., and C. J. West. 2000. “Environmental Weeds in Australia and NewZealand: Issues and Approaches to Management.” Austral Ecology 25.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status ofthe Earth’s Living Resources. London: Chapman and Hall.

———. Papua New Guinea Country Characteristics. Available at www.wmcm.org (ac-cessed November 7, 2002).

———. Papua New Guinea Rainforests. Available at www.wcmc.org (accessedNovember 10, 2002).

World Conservation Union—IUCN. 2002. Red List of Threatened Species. Available atwww.redlist.org (accessed November 25, 2002).

World Wide Fund for Nature. 2002. “Solomon Islands Rain Forests.” Available atwww.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial (accessed March 2003).

———. 2002. “Vanuatu Rain Forests.” Available at www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial (accessed March 2003).

World Wide Fund for Nature and World Conservation Union-IUCN. 1995. Centres ofPlant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation. Cambridge:WWF.

Young, Ann. 1996. Environmental Change in Australia since 1788. Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press.

3

Parks, Preserves, and

Protected Areas

O ceania is a region of vast size and attendant habitat and species diversity.It includes the continent nation of Australia as well as New Zealand,

Papua New Guinea, and another 10,000 islands divided among twenty-onecountries and territories distributed over more than 40 million square kilo-meters (15.5 million square miles) of the South Pacific. As one moves acrossthis corner of the globe, an incredible array of unique wilderness areas andhabitats nourishing high concentrations of endemic and threatened speciescan be found. Areas contributing to Oceania’s high levels of biodiversity in-clude rugged mountain ranges and gorges, towering old-growth forests, col-orful tropical reefs, white sand beaches, mangrove swamps, untamed rivers,and remote desert landscapes.

During the past century, many nations in Oceania have erected protectedarea networks to preserve these areas. A multitude of these parks and sanctuar-ies were created out of a spirit of ecological stewardship; others were estab-lished to preserve aesthetically pleasing lands or accommodate the recreationalpursuits of citizenry and tourists. Whatever the motivation, the end result hasbeen the creation of parklands and reserves of extensive size and notable eco-logical value. This is especially true in Australia and New Zealand, economi-cally advanced nations that account for an overwhelming percentage (almost94 percent) of Oceania’s total land area. Notable protected areas in these coun-tries range from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the largest marineprotected area on the planet, to New Zealand’s Te Urewera National Park,home of the largest forested wilderness remaining on the country’s NorthIsland, and Whanganui National Park, which shields the wild Whanganui

51

River as it flows from its mountain origins into the Tasman Sea. But note-worthy parks and reserves exist elsewhere in Oceania as well. Indeed, numer-ous small but ecologically important protected areas dot the far-flung islandnations of the South Pacific.

Unfortunately, many protected area networks in Oceania are sufferingdegradation from a host of internal and external forces. Even parks inAustralia and New Zealand, which have shown a strong commitment towilderness conservation principles, have been affected. These threats rangefrom levels of tourism that compromise the integrity of park habitat to de-structive land use practices inside or adjacent to the boundaries of protectedareas. These activities include unsustainable forms of logging, mining, farm-ing, commercial development, and expansion of towns and cities. In addition,inadequate investment in protected area networks—including monitoringand maintenance of existing parks—is a problem in Papua New Guinea andother Pacific Island states, and expansion of systems to provide greater protec-tion of valuable and vulnerable habitat and species is an emerging prioritythroughout the region.

Classification of Protected AreasProtected areas around the world are managed for a wide range of purposes,including scientific research, wilderness protection, preservation of speciesand ecosystems, maintenance of environmental services, protection of specificnatural and cultural features, tourism and recreation, education, sustainableexploitation of natural resources, and maintenance of cultural and traditionalattributes. The specific design, objectives, implementation, and managementof protected areas all vary in accordance with the home country’s cultural, po-litical, economic, and ecological orientations. Indeed, classification systemsused by individual countries vary in accordance with objectives and levels ofprotection, and title designations are different from country to country aswell. Therefore, comparing protected areas in different regions of the world, orin different countries within one region, can be a challenging task.

To help countries decide what type of area to establish, select preservationobjectives, and set management guidelines to achieve those objectives, theWorld Conservation Union (also known as IUCN from its former name—theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature) maintains a classifica-tion system for protected areas that is recognized around the world. Clas-sifying individual protected areas into this system based on their statedmanagement objectives, regardless of their local designations, also makes in-formation comparable across national and regional boundaries, permittingan assessment of the effectiveness of different protected area categories. Data


on all but the smallest of the world’s parks and reserves are collected by theWCPA and used to create the United Nations List of Protected Areas, the defin-itive listing of protected areas around the globe.

The World Conservation Union classifies each formally designated pro-tected area in one of six management categories. Category I parks and reservesare protected areas managed primarily for science or wilderness protection.Strict nature reserves (Category Ia) includes ecological reserves, biological re-serves, ecological stations, and other areas that are managed purely for biodi-versity protection and scientific research and do not tolerate human visitationother than by scientists. Wilderness areas (Category Ib) are protected areasmanaged primarily for wilderness ecosystem protection; they allow humanvisitation only at a primitive level—that is, without assistance from human-established infrastructure such as roads and housing.

Category II protected areas are national parks managed for both ecosystemprotection and human recreation. This is the most common category of pro-tected area everywhere, because it is both the oldest of the categories and theone that is best suited to achieve the two objectives of greatest interest to thegeneral public—conservation and recreation.

Other management classifications are available for natural monumentsand landmarks that are managed primarily for conservation of specific natu-ral features such as mountains, lakes, or canyons (Category III), species andhabitat protection areas that are managed primarily for conservation, thoughsubject to tree felling and other active forms of management (Category IV),protected landscapes and seascapes with dual conservation and recreationmanagement mandates (Category V), and “managed resource protectionareas” (Category VI), which seek to balance biodiversity protection with ex-tractive activities like logging conducted in a sustainable manner.

Protected Areas in AustraliaAustralia contains a far greater number of parks, marine reserves, conservationareas, and other types of protected areas than any other nation in the SouthPacific. In addition, the total area of land and sea protected under the Australianflag is more than thirteen times the size of the combined protected area systemsof New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and the other Pacific Island states.

According to a late 1990s report sponsored by the World Commission onProtected Areas, Australia contains 5,647 recognized protected areas covering1.046 million square kilometers (0.4 million square miles), approximately13.6 percent of its total land area (this percentage includes both actual pro-tected land area—about 8 percent—and marine protected areas). The meansize of Australia’s parks and reserves is a little over 185 square kilometers (71

Parks, Preserves, and Protected Areas 53

square miles); by comparison, the mean size of protected areas in Europe isonly 65 square kilometers (25 square miles), while the mean size of protectedareas in South America is 1,280 square kilometers (494 square miles) (Greenand Paine, 1997).

Most of Australia’s protected areas are in the following three IUCN cate-gories: (1) 2,191 strict nature reserves and wilderness areas (Type Ia and Ib),covering nearly 273,000 square kilometers (105,000 square miles)—3.55 per-cent of Australia’s total land area; (2) 672 national parks (Type II), coveringmore than 237,000 square kilometers (105,000 square miles)—3.1 percent ofthe continent’s total land area; and (3) 309 multiple-use reserves (Type VI),covering more than 476,000 square kilometers (184,000 square miles)—6.2percent of the country’s total land area (ibid.).

Australia’s own Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD),meanwhile, paints a similar portrait of the country’s protected area network,though numbers are slightly different because of the creation of new parksand evolving management philosophies for existing parks. According to thissource, at the end of the 1990s, Australia contained 5,251 terrestrial (land)protected areas divided into forty-one distinct types of parks, reserves, andsanctuaries, from Aboriginal national parks and botanical gardens to stateparks and wilderness protection areas. These protected areas encompass morethan 61 million hectares and protect 7.84 percent of mainland Australia (in-cluding Tasmania). According to CAPAD statistics, the most numerous pro-tected areas are Type IV species and protection habitat areas—1,397 protectedareas covering more than 325,000 hectares. But the most significant categoriesby area are nature reserves and wilderness areas (Type Ia and Ib), which af-forded protection to more than 19 million hectares in 1,981 units; nationalparks (Type II), which covered another 25.2 million hectares within 603 units;and managed resource protection areas (Type VI), which accounted for morethan 11.7 million hectares distributed among 376 units (Environment Aus-tralia, 2000).

In addition to its land-based parks and reserves, Australia has designatedabout 200 marine protected areas (MPAs), ranging from small state- and ter-ritory-managed aquatic reserves to marine parks under the jurisdiction of theCommonwealth. These MPAs, which operate in accordance with IUCN guide-lines and categories, covered nearly 61 million hectares in 2000. Australia’scommonwealth government was responsible for only thirteen of them, butthese federal parks and reserves account for the lion’s share of protected ma-rine habitat, at more than 53 million hectares. Queensland accounts for an-other 5.4 million hectares of marine protected area within its eighty-twoMPAs, the most of any single state or territory in Australia. Other states and


Table 3.1 Australia’s Terrestrial Protected Areas by Type

AreaDesignation – Protected Area Type Number (hectares) Jurisdiction

Aboriginal National Parks 4 531,485 NTBotanic Garden 1 90 COMMConservation Areas 119 486,390 TASConservation Parks 394 5,933,630 QLD, SA, WAConservation Reserves 63 317,233 SA, NTFeature Protection Areas 26 1,703 QLDFlora Reserves 103 29,036 NSWForest Reserves 191 176,122 TASGame Reserves 21 36,847 TAS, SAHistoric Sites 26 15,960 TASHistorical Reserves 15 9,801 NTHunting Reserve 1 1,605 NTIndigenous Protected Areas 6 507,087 SA, VIC, TASKarst Conservation Reserves 4 4,409 NSWManagement Agreement Areas 1 19,930 NTMarine Parks (Terrestrial Component) 4 704 WAMiscellaneous Reserves 9 2,425 WANational Parks 511 28,172,191 ALLNational Parks, Scientific 7 52,181 QLDNative Forest Reserves 6 1,473 SA, NTNatural Features Reserves 1,522 160,336 VICNature Conservation Reserves 328 180,758 VICNature Parks 14 26,896 NTNature Reserves 1,441 11,547,443 NSW, ACT,

TAS, WAOther Conservation Area 41 409,972 TAS, NTOther Parks 9 52,463 VICProtected Areas 4 13,380 TAS, NTRecreation Parks 12 2,994 SAReference Areas (outside PA) 36 21,074 VICRegional Reserves 10 10,656,316 TAS, SAReserves 11 22,814 NSWResources Reserves 21 257,703 QLDScientific Areas 40 11,545 QLDSection 5(g) Reserves 28 147,340 WASites of Special Scientific Interest 4 11,550 COMMSpecially Protected Areas 4 1,142,060 COMMState Parks 31 183,452 VICState Recreation Areas 2 230 TASState Reserves 50 17,869 TASWilderness Parks 3 202,050 VICWilderness Protection Areas 5 70,074 SA

Totals 5,128 61,438,611

(continues)

territories with significant systems include New South Wales (fifty MPAs,128,000 hectares), South Australia (seventeen MPAs, 252,000 hectares), West-ern Australia (eight MPAs, 1.4 million hectares), and Northern Territory(seven MPAs, 230,000 hectares) (Australian State of the Environment Com-mittee, 2001). Australia’s most famous marine protected area is Great BarrierReef Marine Park, which is managed for multiple uses ranging from tourismto fishing, but nonetheless provides protection to 344,800 square kilometers(133,100 square miles) of ocean rich in flora and fauna. This park is managedby a separate commonwealth agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority.

Management and oversight of Australia’s vast array of parks, wildernessareas, and marine reserves is divided among nine jurisdictions—the com-


Table 3.1

AreaProtected Area Types within other PAs Number (hectares) Jurisdiction

Reference Areas (within PA) 104 90,306Wilderness Zones (within PA) 19 640,000

Totals 123 730,306

Combined Totals 5,251 62,168,917 double counting

Total of all PAs in Australia 61,438,611

Total of PAs in External Territories 1,165,581

Total of PAs in mainland Australia (incl. Tas.) 60,273,030

PAs as % of total land area (ha) of the Australian mainland (incl. Tas.)

Total land area of mainland Australia 768,432,663Total land area of PAs in mainland Australia 60,273,030

% PAs in Australia 7.84

% land protected on the Australian Mainland (incl. Tas.) 7.84

SOURCE: Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database 2000. Copyright Commonwealth ofAustralia reproduced by permission.

(continued)

monwealth (federal) government, six states (New South Wales, Queensland,South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia), and two self-governing territories (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory).Among Australia’s states and territories, New South Wales has long been a rec-ognized leader in conservation, and it has a particularly noteworthy history ofprotecting wilderness areas. Indeed, New South Wales’s 1967 National Parksand Wildlife Act, which provided for the declaration of wilderness areaswithin national parks, marked the first time that the wilderness concept ap-peared in Australian legislation, and it proved to be a model for the common-wealth and other states. Since that landmark legislation, New South Wales hasdeclared seventeen wilderness areas (IUCN Type Ia or Ib) within its bound-aries, and it has remained a leading proponent of the wilderness ideal(Environment Australia, 2000).

Threats to Australia’s Protected Area NetworkLarge, unspoiled wilderness areas can still be found in many areas of Australia.Their continued existence is the result of several factors, including climatic


Table 3.2 Australia’s Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), November 2000

Number Area in ManagementJurisdiction of MPAs MPAs (ha) Plans produced

Commonwealth (incl.Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 13 53,329,431 5

New South Wales 50 127,707 4

Victoria 12 50,312 7

Tasmania 5 77,110 0

South Australia 17 252,371 1

Western Australia 8 1,393,387 4

Northern Territory 7 230,426 0

Queensland 82 5,421,117 6

Total 194 60,881,861 27

SOURCE: Australian State of the Environment Committee. 2001. Australia State of the Environment2001. Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage. CSIROPublishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Copyright Common-wealth of Australia reproduced by permission.

and topographic conditions that make some regions inhospitable for settle-ment or economic activity; the existence of a protected area system thatshields forests, rivers, reefs, and other biologically rich ecosystems from devel-opment and degradation; and the country’s relatively small population in re-lation to its land area. Indeed, the latter factor is perhaps the leadingcontributor to the continued existence of large wilderness areas in Australia.For example, Australia averages 7 people per square mile across its land area.By comparison, the United States contains 77 people per square mile, Chinacontains 347 people per square mile, and Germany contains 598 people persquare mile (Population Reference Bureau, 2002).

Nonetheless, even some parks and reserves enjoying Australia’s highest lev-els of conservation protection have suffered erosion in the realms of ecologi-cal integrity and species health. This erosion is attributable to both internalfactors, such as heavy and inappropriate tourist activity, and external factors,such as nearby logging and mining activities that fragment habitat and de-posit pollutants into waterways running through the parks.

In Australia—like most other countries in the world—large areas of habitathave already been sacrificed for development, leaving behind “islands” ofremnant habitat surrounded by “oceans” of agriculture, logged forests, high-ways, cities and towns, and other kinds of development. This is especially trueof Australia’s coastal areas in the south and west, where the beautiful tropicalforests and coastal areas that nourish many species of flora and fauna havealso attracted heavy concentrations of Australian families and businesses. InQueensland, for example, populations of the southern cassowary—a six-foot-tall, flightless bird that once roamed throughout the coastal rain forest—havebeen decimated by residential development that has destroyed much of thewide-ranging creature’s habitat. In 1999 the cassowary was officially desig-nated as an endangered species.

To a large degree, these historical patterns of development have dictated theshape and management priorities of today’s protected areas. “In many casesthese ‘islands’ are all that is left to conserve and there is no choice about thedesign of reserves” (Beattie, 1995). In some cases—as with the southern cas-sowary—the protected areas that have been cobbled together have not been ofsufficient size or strength to safeguard fragile species from the pressures of theoutside world (Pressey, 1995).

Australia is also grappling with the struggle to “accommodate tourism andrecreation—which are essential in maintaining public support for protectedarea networks and other environmental protection measures—while alsomaintaining ecological integrity” (Beattie, 1995). Indeed, ecotourism is asteadily growing force in the overall fortunes of Australia’s travel industry, andbusinesses and communities near tourist destinations such as the Great


Barrier Reef are heavily dependent on these protected areas for their contin-ued existence. But in some parks, such as Kakadu National Park, where thenumber of visitors increased from 45,800 in 1982 to 240,000 in 1994–1995(Aplin,1998), existing infrastructure (parking lots, visitor centers, restrooms,campgrounds, and so on) can become woefully inadequate. Consequently,pressure to accommodate growing numbers of visitors through increased in-vestment in infrastructure is strong. But detractors contend that in some casesthese “improvements” compromise the ecosystems and endanger the speciesthat the park/reserve/sanctuary is charged with protecting. “The desires oftourists may clash with the objectives held for protected lands, so it is hardlysurprising that it is difficult to achieve minimal impact in highly valued land-scapes” (Young, 2000). In some protected areas, however, park managers haveaddressed rising levels of visitation in ways that suggest a recognition of theprimacy of the protected area’s conservation mandate. Measures to countervisitor pressure include pricing policies, restrictions on daily visitation levels,and internal zoning of reserves to provide varying levels of public access.

Protecting Wilderness and Biodiversity in the Twenty-first CenturyAt the beginning of the twenty-first century, Australia has set aside approxi-mately 8 percent of its total land area for conservation. But it has signaled, bothin word and deed, its interest in further expanding its protected area network.


Tourists travel by boat through the wetlands of Kakadu National Park in Australia’s Northern Territory.

MICHAEL S. YAMASHITA/CORBIS

One priority among Australian conservationists is to extend a greater levelof protection to habitats that sustain threatened species. At the close of thetwentieth century, less than one-quarter of Australia’s endangered and vulner-able plant species were found in national parks or proclaimed reserves. Theremainder were located in areas receiving no special protections from devel-opment. Many of these habitats are almost certainly safe from exploitation,for they are in remote regions or are of little interest to mining, timber, agri-cultural, or real estate interests. But others are more vulnerable, for they con-tain exploitable natural resources in large enough quantities to be of potentialcommercial interest, or they lie in the path of expanding residential and com-mercial developments.

A related shortcoming of Australia’s existing protected area network is theunder-representation of open woodlands and grasslands. This state of affairsis directly linked to (1) Australian settlement patterns, which targeted openareas for grazing and crop cultivation; (2) the frequency with which states andterritories added to protected area systems by incorporating land available atlittle or no cost—a practice that has been termed “conservation on the cheap”(Adam, 1992); and (3) the understandable desire to provide protection formountain forests, rocky coastlines, high desert plateaus, and other aestheti-cally attractive regions that seem symbolic of the wilderness ideal. Conserv-ationists laud the protections that have been afforded to the latter types ofregions, but they believe that the rush to preserve these areas (an effort madeconsiderably easier by their perceived low economic value) pushed protectionof species-rich grasslands and open woodlands that had been spared by thefirst waves of Australian settlement far down the conservation priority list.

Today, the remnants of these ecosystem types still provide important habi-tat for a wide array of flora and fauna, but they are also vulnerable to exploita-tion in many parts of the country (Aplin, 1998; Pressey, 1995). For Australia’sreserve systems to cover the full natural diversity of a region, then, greater at-tention will need to be paid to grasslands, open woodlands, and other under-represented but ecologically valued habitat types. “The resources for natureconservation are limited, competition with extractive uses is often fierce, andmany species and habitats have limited life expectancies unless formally pro-tected,” observed one study. “Poor decisions about protected areas are there-fore difficult to correct and can have a high price, if not for people then forother species. Unfortunately, poor decisions are all too frequent. Formal pro-tection is commonly biased towards areas with least potential for economic orsubsistence use and least in need of conservation action” (Pressey, n.d.).

Protected area design issues are also being explored at the commonwealth,state, and territorial levels. In response to rising numbers of threatened and


endangered species, some analysts have called for increased linkage of indi-vidual protected areas through the creation of wildlife corridors in order tocreate larger blocks of contiguous protected area. Indeed, conservationistsand wildlife biologists around the world have touted linked networks of pro-tected areas as a way of preserving habitat and wildlife by providing otherwiseisolated populations of animals with the means to migrate and breed with dis-tant populations, thus strengthening the entire ecosystem’s biodiversity. InAustralia, the scaffolding of such an arrangement would include a combina-tion of undeveloped public land and conservation easements on private land,with management responsibilities divided among commonwealth, state, andterritory agencies. On the other hand, some conservationists have called forincreased emphasis on the creation of numerous smaller reserves that mightbuffer species against chance extinction—from disease, for example—moreeffectively than would a single large protected area.

Other conservation priorities frequently cited in examinations of Aus-tralia’s existing protected area system include greater protection of “keystonespecies”—those species that sustain numerous species by providing shelter orfood or habitat maintenance—and greater regulation of mining, logging, devel-opment, as well as other activities in areas adjacent to parks and reserves so thatpractices that degrade land, water, and air within protected areas are minimized.

Much of the groundwork for further expansion of Australia’s system of pro-tected areas has already been completed, as commonwealth, state, and territo-rial governments have passed a number of pieces of conservation legislationwithin the last fifteen years. For example, the creation and implementation ofRegional Forest Agreements (RFAs)—joint agreements between the common-wealth and state governments that provide a twenty-year “blueprint” for man-agement and use of forests in a particular region—is, according to governmentagencies, helping Australia meet its professed goal of establishing a “world-class” forest reserve system across Australia (Commonwealth of Australia,2000). These agreements have already been credited with significantly expand-ing the area of Australian forests contained in conservation reserves and otherprotected areas (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Global Forest Re-source Assessment 2000, 2001). However, Australian environmental organiza-tions such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claim that theRFAs mark an abrogation by the commonwealth government of its responsi-bility to protect natural areas with high conservation value, instead leaving thisimportant duty to states and territories that may not have the funds or inclina-tion to do so. The ACF has also charged that conservation goals stipulated inthe RFAs have been subverted and that the agreements are “supporting unsus-tainable logging levels, massive job loss, destruction of old growth and high


conservation value forests, all heavily subsidized by the taxpayer” (AustralianConservation Foundation, 2002).

Several other initiatives launched in the mid-1990s have helped to increasethe representativeness of the nation’s system of conservation reserves. Theseinitiatives include the National Reserve System Program and related state andterritory programs, the Indigenous Protected Area program, new multitenuremanagement schemes, and a surge in contributions from nongovernment en-tities such as the Trust for Nature and Bush Heritage Fund (EnvironmentAustralia, “Parks and Reserves,” 2003). In addition, the 1999 passage of theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) givesthe Commonwealth a valuable new tool for establishing and managing pro-tected areas; within two years of the law’s passage, twenty-one reserves hadbeen declared under the EPBC Act, comprising six national parks, five na-tional nature reserves, five marine parks, three marine reserves, and twobotanical gardens (ibid.).

Australia has also shown increased recognition of the ecological, economic,and cultural importance of the continent’s oceans and coastal areas. In theearly 1990s the country’s state, territory, and commonwealth governmentsagreed to establish a National Representative System of Marine ProtectedAreas (NRSMPA) that will contribute to the long-term ecological viability ofmarine and estuarine systems and protect Australia’s biodiversity. Since thattime, a variety of marine parks, marine national parks, marine and intertidalhabitat areas, coastal reserves, marine management areas, fish habitat protec-tion areas, aquatic reserves, seaward extensions of national parks, marine na-ture reserves, and marine reserves have sprouted across the continent. Thenaming conventions and management priorities of these protected areas varyby jurisdiction, but “they share a common intent to protect the marine and es-tuarine environment, particularly habitats such as reefs, seagrass beds, tidallagoons, mangroves, rock platforms, coastal, deep ocean and underwaterseabed areas and any marine cultural heritage” (Australian State of theEnvironment Committee, 2001). Conservation groups, however, have urgedthe extension of formal safeguards to much larger areas of coastline, both inheavily populated and rural areas of the country.

Australia also remains an active participant in various international conser-vation agreements. A member of the RAMSAR Convention since the 1980s,the country contains sixty-three recognized Wetlands of InternationalImportance (RAMSAR Convention, 2002). It also contains fourteen WorldHeritage properties. Most of these natural areas of “universal importance”were nominated and inscribed with little controversy. Others, such as theTasmanian World Heritage Area and the Wet Tropics of Queensland, aroused


fierce opposition from state governments and commercial interests at the out-set but have since garnered acceptance from state authorities and local com-munities (McNeely, 1994).

Finally, Australia has shown a willingness to take bold steps in expanding itsprotected areas system. In 2002 it announced its intention to create theworld’s largest highly protected marine reserve, one that would—unlike theGreat Barrier Reef—be free of fishing, energy development, and other formsof exploitation. This massive new reserve, totaling 6.5 million hectares, will becreated around the remote Heard Island and McDonald Islands group, lo-cated 4,500 kilometers (2,790 miles) southwest of the Australian mainland.According to scientists, this sub-Antarctic island group remains free of foreignspecies introduced directly by human activity. It also contains valuable habitatand food supplies for the southern elephant seal, the sub-Antarctic fur seal,several penguin species, and two albatross species.

That same year, Australia formally established the country’s largest pro-tected area deep in the outback desert. The protected area, called Ngaan-yatjarra, will be managed by Aboriginal peoples that have long sought toprotect the region’s culture and environment from outside disturbances. Butthe Australian government will still assist in some aspects of the park’s opera-tion, including combating alien species, protecting water sources and othernatural features, and establishing ecologically sensitive ecotourism ventures.The targeted area covers more than 98,000 square kilometers (38,000 squaremiles) and incorporates portions of the Gibson, Great Sandy, and Great Vic-toria deserts. It is the fifteenth indigenous protected area proclaimed in Aus-tralia, and the largest ever.

Australia’s Indigenous Protected AreasIndigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are tracts of land controlled and managedby traditional Aboriginal peoples for the purposes of promoting biodiversityand cultural resource conservation. This program was created in the wake ofthe 1993 Native Title Act, which granted extensive new land rights to Aborigi-nal communities that had historically been victimized by the machinations ofwhite governments and industries.

At the close of the twentieth century, indigenous people owned or managedabout 15 percent of the Australian continent, including large swaths of semi-arid and arid rangelands that nurture many endemic species of flora andfauna. This has not escaped the notice of the country’s conservation scientists,who have been keen to identify and fill gaps in the country’s existing system ofprotected areas. “[This scientific approach] has shown [that] many types oflandscapes and ecosystems . . . are poorly represented in the existing National


Reserve System and that some such areas occur only on Indigenous ownedlands” (Environment Australia, “Indigenous Protected Areas,” 2003).

The IPA was thus created, both to help ensure that Aboriginal land rightswere respected and to address gaps in Australia’s protected area network.Nantawarrina was the first Indigenous Protected Area declared, in August1998. It covers 58,000 hectares and is adjacent to the southern boundary ofGammon Ranges National Park in South Australia. Title to the land is held bythe South Australian Aboriginal Lands Trust on behalf of the Adnyamathanhapeople from Nepabunna, and by all accounts this community has done alaudable job of balancing biodiversity conservation and cultural values. InJune 2000 the Nepabunna community even won a UN Environment Dayaward in recognition of its work in Nantawarrina. Other notable IPA reservesinclude Watarru Indigenous Protected Area, a globally significant haven forreptile species that covers 1.28 million hectares, including parts of the ruggedBirksgate Ranges; the 100,000-hectare Dhimurru IPA in the Northern Terr-itory, which contains sacred sites of the Yolngu people and vital habitat forthreatened species of marine turtles and sea birds; and Warul Kawa (Deliver-ance Island), an island IPA located in the Torres Strait that is an importantnesting site for three species of sea turtle and a significant cultural and spiri-tual site for the Torres Strait Island people. By February 2001, the IPA pro-gram included thirteen distinct properties encompassing 3.1 million hectares.


Sandstone monolith known as Ayers Rock, or Ululu (its Aboriginal name). COREL

Since that time, two additional protected areas, including the aforementionedNgaanyatjarra, have been incorporated into the program, and other additionsare expected in the future (ibid.).

Protected Areas in New ZealandComposed of two large islands—North and South Islands—and numeroussmaller islands, New Zealand contains vast areas of rugged beauty that arerenowned throughout the world. Public appreciation of these natural riches iswidespread throughout the country, which features a high standard of livingand low population densities (37 people per square mile) (Population Ref-erence Bureau, 2002). This combination of factors has created a fertile envi-ronment for the creation of a large and impressive system of protected areas.Indeed, few nations around the world can match the conservation programthat has been erected by New Zealand over the past half-century.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, New Zealand had 235 protectedareas recognized by the World Conservation Union-IUCN. These areas cov-ered 63,338 square kilometers (24,455 square miles), nearly 24 percent of NewZealand’s total land area. Within this system, the most significant protectedarea type was national parks (Type II protected areas according to IUCN clas-sifications), with thirteen parks covering 28,629 square kilometers (11, 054square miles)—10.8 percent of New Zealand’s total land area. Other protectedarea categories providing protection to extensive land area included fifty-fourwilderness areas and nature reserves (Type Ia and Ib parks) covering 15,760square kilometers (6,085 square miles)—5.94 percent of the total land area—and seventeen protected landscapes/seascapes managed for both recreationand conservation (Type V parks), covering 13,699 square kilometers (5289square miles)—5.17 percent of the total land area (Green and Paine, 1997).Since this survey, New Zealand has continued to add to its network of pro-tected areas, approving numerous smaller reserves and sanctuaries and open-ing a fourteenth national park—the 157,000-hectare Rakiura National Parkon Stewart Island—in 2002. Today, New Zealand reports that fully one-thirdof the country’s total land area is protected in some type of park or reserve.

New Zealand’s Department of Conservation (DOC) manages six types ofprotected areas in “conservation units,” standard groupings of parcels of landused in the DOC’s National Land Register. As of early 2002, these holdings in-cluded reserves (2,977 conservation units encompassing 1.234 million hec-tares), national parks (14 parks divided into 27 conservation units, with atotal land area of 3.4 million hectares), conservation areas (3,799 conserva-tion units totaling 4.314 million hectares), wildlife areas (4 conservation unitscovering 88 hectares), marine mammal sanctuaries (2 conservation units—


Auckland Islands and Banks Peninsula—totaling 2.328 million hectares), andprotected private lands, consisting in large measure of conservation covenantarrangements (441 conservation units totaling 81,250 hectares). New Zealandalso boasts three World Heritage Sites of cultural and natural heritage of “out-standing universal value”: Tongariro National Park; Te Wahipounamu—South West New Zealand (consisting of Westland/Tai Poutini National Park,Mount Aspiring National Park, Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, andFiordland National Park); and Sub-Arctic Islands of New Zealand (includingAuckland, Campbell, Antipodes, and Bounty Groups and the Snares islands).

Some of the lands in New Zealand that receive protection from developmentwould probably be spared from heavy human use anyway by virtue of their lo-cation and topographical features. For example, the centerpieces of many ofthe country’s national parks are mountain ranges that are unsuited for settle-ment and farming or minimally adorned with accessible resources (such astimber) that would interest commercial resource extraction operations. ButNew Zealand has also set aside extensive areas of species-rich natural forestfor preservation. In fact, fully 77 percent of natural forests in New Zealand aregovernment-owned and managed as protected areas by the country’s De-partment of Conservation. All of these forests—nearly 5 million hectares intotal—are subject to conservation management plans. In addition, New Zea-land has arranged for the protection of 70,000 hectares of privately ownednatural forests through a variety of conservation covenant agreements (UNFood and Agriculture Organization, Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000,2001). This level of forest protection—unmatched anywhere else in the world—is the cornerstone of the country’s protected area network, and the singlegreatest key to New Zealand’s hopes of preserving its natural ecosystems andits many species of flora and fauna for future generations.

Still, New Zealand’s heavy emphasis on conservation has not gone unchal-lenged or been entirely devoid of controversy. Regarding the natural forests ofNew Zealand, “there remains a distinct tension between preservationist andmultiple-use management philosophies,” acknowledged one global foreststudy.“In recent years, there has been a marked shift towards further reducingthe already modest industrial forestry activities in natural forests. At the sametime, this has removed a significant component of the natural forests’ abilityto generate funds for improved management. Natural forests managers haveconsequently become increasingly reliant on direct government funding foreffective management, and in some areas this has fallen short in providing ad-equate protection from degradation by introduced pests, most notably by reddeer and the Australian brush-tailed opossum” (ibid.).

Finally, New Zealand’s efforts to protect marine biodiversity and ecosystemsthrough the establishment of protected areas has traditionally lagged behind


its land-based conservation programs. Whereas about one-third of NewZealand’s land is under some form of protection, marine reserves cover just0.1 percent of the coastal sea around the North and South Islands. However,the country appears to be moving decisively to rectify this gap in coverage.One objective of its recently minted New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy(NZBS) is to expand the network of marine protected areas (using marine re-serves and other forms of legal protection) so that it fully represents the rangeof New Zealand’s coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats. By 2010, ithopes to have approved protection for 10 percent of the seas surrounding theisland’s two major islands. Toward this end, the Department of Conservationis laboring to create up to fifteen new marine reserves by 2005, and tangibleprogress toward this goal has already been made. In 2002, for instance, theMinister of Conservation approved three new marine reserve applications—atTe Matuku Bay on Waiheke Island (700 hectares), at Taputeranga on the southcoast of Wellington (969 hectares), and at Paterson Inlet on Stewart Island(1,140 hectares). (These applications also require the consent of the ministersof Fisheries and Transport before they can be approved as marine reserves.)

In addition, New Zealand has sought to update its Marine Reserves Act1971, the basis for its current marine reserve system. A proposed successor tothe 1971 legislation—the Marine Reserves Bill—was introduced to Parliamentfor consideration in October 2002. This bill seeks to address several perceiveddeficiencies in the existing system. For example, it includes new provisions formeeting obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi, the 1840 treaty in which theUnited Kingdom proclaimed sovereignty over New Zealand in return forpromises to respect the land-ownership rights of indigenous Maori peoples. Italso seeks to join marine protection efforts with other environmental legis-lation passed in recent years, and it legalizes the creation of marine reserveswithin New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)—the area of ocean ex-tending from the outside edge of New Zealand’s territorial sea (which extends12 nautical miles out from the coastline) to 200 miles from inhabitable land.

Protected Area Systems in Other Oceanic StatesProgress in establishing and maintaining protected area networks in otherOceanic states has been fitful since the 1970s, when Pacific Island states includ-ing Tonga, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, the Cook Islands, andVanuatu devoted considerable resources toward establishment of protectedareas, with a special focus on economically and ecologically valuable marineand coastal areas. This spate of activity declined dramatically in the 1980s, de-spite proliferating regional initiatives and meetings specifically designed to en-courage protected area designation and biodiversity protection. In the 1990s,meanwhile, campaigns to safeguard ecologically significant natural areas from


development produced meaningful success in only a handful of countries.In the late 1990s Oceanic states excluding Australia and New Zealand had a

total of 152 protected areas recognized by the World Conservation Union-IUCN. These parks and reserves covered a total of 13,113 square kilometers(5,063 square miles) and had a mean size of 86 square kilometers (33 squaremiles). Approximately one-third (50) of parks and reserves in the IUCN’sPacific category were Type IV protected areas—habitat/species managementareas subject to active forms of management, including forest clearing andother activities seen as helpful to meeting management goals. The next mostcommon type of protected area was managed resource protection areas (TypeVI); Oceania contained 34 of these multiple-use zones, which seek to balanceenvironmental conservation with recreational activities (hiking, camping)and extractive activities (logging, mining, hunting). Only 27 of the 152 desig-nated protected areas in the Pacific states were Type Ia or Ib reserves, receivingthe highest levels of conservation protection (Green and Paine, 1997).

Among these Pacific Island states, Papua New Guinea has the most exten-sive protected area network. It ranks second in Oceania (again excludingAustralia and New Zealand) in terms of both the number of protected areasand the total land area protected. But these figures are misleading, for PapuaNew Guinea’s total land mass dwarfs that of the other Oceanic nations.Indeed, Papua New Guinea’s 464,000 square kilometers (179,000 squaremiles) of land area make it considerably larger than New Zealand, let alonetiny states such as Tonga (751 square kilometers [290 square miles of land]),the Marshall Islands (179 square kilometers [69 square miles]), Tuvalu (26square kilometers [10 square miles]), and Nauru (23 square kilometers [9square miles]) (Population Reference Bureau, 2002).

A closer look at Papua New Guinea’s protected area system reveals a net-work rotting from inattention and mismanagement. The country’s twenty-sixformally recognized parks and reserves protect 10,341 square kilometers(3,993 square miles), only 2.23 percent of its total land area. Many of the pro-tected areas that do exist are managed by tribal communities rather than thegovernment, which devotes little funding or energy to scientific research,wildlife monitoring, or visitor services. “The present system [in Papua NewGuinea] has evolved largely since 1975 and is woefully inadequate for a coun-try of the size and conservation importance of Papua New Guinea,” con-cluded one IUCN survey (McNeely, 1994).

Elsewhere in Oceania, France’s New Caledonia has forty-six protectedareas, but these cover only 1,154 square kilometers (446 square miles)—6 per-cent of its total land area—and consist primarily of category IV reserves(habitat and species areas under active management regimes). No other



Pacific Island state has more than 300 square kilometers (116 square miles) setaside for conservation protection or more than fifteen formally designatedprotected areas. Most countries have less than 6 percent of their admittedlymodest land area under some form of protection, and mangrove forests,which provide a host of important ecological functions, remain severely un-derrepresented in protected area systems across much of the South Pacific. Inaddition, membership in the RAMSAR Convention among Pacific Islandcountries is practically nonexistent. This is significant, for while wetland re-sources are limited in extent in many of these small island states, the region ischaracterized by coral reefs, a vital wetland type recognized by the RAMSARConvention, and it contains globally significant reefs in terms of both en-demism rates and biodiversity.

One of the chief obstacles to development of protected area networks hasbeen the region’s entrenched system of land and resource ownership.Government control and ownership of land in most Pacific Island countries isthe exception rather than the rule. In fact, in many parts of Oceania, privategroups “can lay claim to the ownership of the resources of the land and coastalmarine areas including reefs and fishing grounds. Pacific Island people haveunusually strong cultural, spiritual and economic links with their land andcoastal marine environment resulting from their dependence on terrestrialand marine resources for subsistence. In such circumstances the compulsoryacquisition of land for protected areas and the denial of resource user rights isout of the question and governments have not seen protected areas establish-ment as a high enough priority to warrant expenditure on compensation orthe possible political impact of difficult or failed negotiations” (ibid.).

Other impediments to the establishment of parks, reserves, sanctuaries,and other types of protected areas include high population growth rates,which have triggered displacement of traditional land management systemsby new agricultural systems and further depletion of marginal forest landsand other habitats; rapacious mining and logging practices, which have de-stroyed entire ecosystems in places like Nauru; and an almost complete ab-sence of comprehensive land-use policies. “It is essential that efforts todevelop and implement sustainable land management policies are given thepriority that the issue deserves” (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

This neglect has extended to existing parks and reserves as well. In Fiji’s J.H. Garrick Memorial Reserve, for example, illegal logging operations carvedup protected forest with impunity during the 1990s. Elsewhere, Queen Eliza-beth II National Park in the Solomon Islands has been wracked by illegalland clearing and fuelwood theft ever since its establishment in 1954. Marineprotected areas have also seen degradation as a result of inappropriate


human activities (such as discharge of pesticides and heavy metals intocoastal waters), infiltration by invasive species, and inadequate funding ofagencies charged with fulfilling management and conservation mandates(McNeely, 1994; UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Global Forest Re-source Assessment 2000, 2001; UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Despite these obstacles, some Pacific Island states have made noteworthystrides in the realm of habitat conservation. For example, forestry reservesbuilt on notions of sustainability and environmental stewardship are slowlycoalescing in some countries. This is an encouraging sign, given the pivotalplace that forest systems occupy in many island ecosystems. And despite theformidable hurdles posed by traditional land tenure systems, many countriesare slowly cobbling together protected area networks for themselves.Countries such as American Samoa, Fiji, French Polynesia, Niue, Samoa, andVanuatu have all declared new parks or reserves in recent years, and NewCaledonia has done an “exceptional” job of creating parks and reserves, ac-cording to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (Global Forest Re-sources Assessment 2000, 2001). In addition, five Pacific Island states haveformally declared their marine Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) to be whalesanctuaries, the first building blocks in an ambitious initiative to create awhale sanctuary across the entire South Pacific (South Pacific Regional En-vironment Program, 2002).

But most countries in Oceania have a long way to go before they will haveprotected area networks fully capable of safeguarding their natural and biolog-ical riches. In fact, observers believe that instituting such networks will requireconsiderable assistance from international conservation and development as-sistance agencies—both governmental and nongovernmental—for the fore-seeable future. Even with such aid, however, there is widespread concern that“unless government conservation agencies [in the Pacific Island states] are dra-matically strengthened through the increased allocation of financial and man-power resources, little progress can be expected with the establishment of newprotected areas in the region let alone with the effective management of exist-ing areas” (McNeely, 1994).

Sources:Adam, P. 1992. “The End of Conservation on the Cheap.” National Parks Journal 36,

no. 3.

Aplin, Graeme. 1998. Australians and Their Environment: An Introduction to Environ-mental Studies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Australia Bureau of Rural Sciences. 1998. Australia’s State of the Forests Report 1998.Canberra: BRS.


Australian Conservation Foundation. 2002. “Regional Forest Agreement Act Bad forEnvironment and Jobs.” March 14. Available at http://www.acfonline.org.au/asp/pages/document.asp?IdDoc=667 (accessed March 2003).

Australian State of the Environment Committee. 2001. Australia State of the Environ-ment Report 2001. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Beattie, Andrew J., ed. 1995. Biodiversity: Australia’s Living Wealth. Sydney: Reed.

Bonyhady, T. 1993. Places Worth Keeping: Conservationists, Politics and Law. Sydney:Allen and Unwin.

Brennan, F. 1995. One Land, One Nation: Mabo—Towards 2001. Brisbane: Universityof Queensland Press.

Brunckhorst, David J., ed. 1994. Marine Protected Areas and Biosphere Reserves: Towarda New Paradigm. Canberra: Australian National Conservation Agency, UNScientific and Cultural Organization.

Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1996. “Threats to Wilderness Ecosystems: Impacts andResearch Needs.” Ecological Applications no. 6.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2002. Regional Forest Agreements, 2002. Available atwww.rfa.gov.au.

Dick, R. 1997. NPWS State Reserve System Program: Past, Present and Future. Sydney:New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Environment Australia. 1997. National Reserve System—Terrestrial and Marine ProtectedAreas in Australia. Canberra: Department of Environment and Heritage.

———. “Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2000.” 2000.Available at www.ea.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/2000 (accessed January 2003).

———. “Indigenous Communities and the Environment.” Available at www.ea.gov.au/indigenous (accessed January 2003).

———. “Indigenous Protected Areas.” Available at www.ea.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/index.html (accessed January 2003).

———. “Parks and Reserves.” Available at www.ea.gov.au/parks (accessed January2003).

Frazier, Scott. 1996. An Overview of the World’s Ramsar Sites. Berkshire, UK: WetlandsInternational.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Protecting the Great Barrier Reef WorldHeritage Area.” Available at www.gbrmpa.gov/corp_site/info_services/publications/brochures/protecting_biodiversity (accessed January 2003).

Green, M. J. B., and J. Paine. 1997. “State of the World’s Protected Areas at the End ofthe Twentieth Century.” Paper presented at IUCN World Commission onProtected Areas Symposium, Albany, Australia, November.

Hall, C. M. 1992. Wasteland to World Heritage: Preserving Australia’s Wilderness. Mel-bourne: Melbourne University Press.

McNeely, J. A., J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall, eds. 1994. Protecting Nature: RegionalReviews of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

New Zealand Department of Conservation. 2000. The New Zealand BiodiversityStrategy: Our Chance to Turn the Tide. Wellington: DOC.

———. “Marine Reserves.” Available at www.doc.govt.nz/conservation (accessedJanuary 2003).

Population Reference Bureau. 2002. 2002 World Population Data Sheet of the PRB:Demographic Data and Estimates for the Countries and Regions of the World.Washington, DC: PRB.

Pressey, R. L. 1995. “Conservation Reserves in New South Wales: Crown Jewels orLeftovers?” Search, no. 26.

Pressey, R. L., et al. n.d. “Effectiveness of Protected Areas in North-Eastern New SouthWales.” Armidale: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Preston, G. 1997. Review of Management Regimes for Coastal and Oceanic Resources inPacific Island Countries. Apia: South Pacific Regional Environmental Pro-gramme.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. 2002. “The RAMSAR List.” Available at www.ramsar.org (accessed November 2002).

South Pacific Regional Environment Program. 2002. Action Strategy for NatureConservation in the Pacific Islands Region, 2003–2007. Apia, Samoa: SPREP.

Stevens, Stan. 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples andProtected Areas. Washington, DC: Island.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Pacific Islands Environmental Outlook. www.unep.org (accessed December 4, 2002).

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment2000. Rome: FAO.

———. 2001. State of the World’s Forests 2001. Rome: FAO.

World Conservation Monitoring Center. 2001. “WCMC Protected Areas Database.”Available at http://unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/data/nat_warning.htm(last revision, October 29).

World Conservation Union-IUCN. 1998. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Young, Ann. 2000. Environmental Change in Australia since 1788. 2d ed. Melbourne:Oxford University Press.

Zbicz, D. C., and M. J. B. Green. 1997. “Status of the World’s Transfrontier ProtectedAreas.” Paper presented at the International Conference on TransboundaryProtected Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-operation, September 16–18,1997, Somerset West, South Africa.


4

Forests

Australia, New Zealand, and the other twenty-two island states and territo-ries of the South Pacific region known as Oceania contain approximately

200 million hectares of forest, about 5 percent of the global total (UN Foodand Agriculture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).But the forests that grace Oceania’s 10,000 islands—many of them virtualspecks scattered across on the surface of more than 40 million square kilome-ters (15.5 million square miles) of sea—have a biological significance far outof proportion to their size. Indeed, these forests, which are overwhelminglytropical or subtropical in nature, contain some of the world’s richest store-houses of rare and endemic species. In addition, healthy forests are importantcomponents in overall watershed health, for they mitigate erosion, store fresh-water, and filter pollutants. And in many Pacific Island states, timber and non-timber products harvested from the forest are cultural and economiccornerstones of urban and rural communities alike. Unfortunately, the qual-ity of stewardship of this resource is uneven across the region. In Australia andNew Zealand, where most of Oceania’s forests are located, attention to sus-tainable use of forest resources is high. In many other Pacific Island states,however, unsustainable rates of logging, massive land-clearing campaigns foragriculture, and other human activities have destroyed large swaths ofspecies-rich forests and left many others imperiled.

Oceania’s Forest ResourcesAlmost all of the states and territories within Oceania contain forests that aretropical in character. Tropical rain forest species drape all three subregions ofOceania—Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia—with the largest intacttracts found in Papua New Guinea (PNG). These species even thrive inAustralia’s northeastern Queensland state, recipient of the country’s highestlevels of annual precipitation. Elsewhere in arid Australia, tropical dry forests

73

and shrublands and subtropical forests (both dry and humid) persist, albeitprimarily in coastal regions. In the lower latitudes of the South Pacific, regionssuch as New Zealand’s South Island, Australia’s southeastern coast, and theisland of Tasmania feature temperate oceanic forest, while mountain forestsystems are limited to the high altitude regions of Australia (such as theTasmanian Highlands and the Australian Alps) and New Zealand (such as theSouthern Alps of South Island).

Mangrove forests are among Oceania’s most ecologically and commerciallyvital forest resources, for they provide a host of major benefits to human andanimal communities alike. These benefits include protection of coastal vil-lages and cities from storm surges and other severe weather events, stabiliza-tion of coastal shorelines against erosion, and provision of habitat for a wideassortment of creatures. Indeed, mangrove stands have been described as hy-brid terrestrial/marine ecosystems, for they are capable of supporting terres-trial species in their canopies while at the same time nourishing fish, shellfish,and other marine species at their base (Nybakken, 1993).

The Indo-Pacific realm (the western part of the Pacific and the IndianOcean in its entirety) is one of two globally recognized centers of mangrove di-versity; the other is centered around the Caribbean, northeastern SouthAmerica, and western Africa. A significant portion of the Indo-Pacific’s man-grove forests can be found garnishing the perimeter of Australia, which ranksbehind only Indonesia and Brazil in total mangrove area (Spalding, 1997).Other major mangrove forests still exist in Papua New Guinea (such as the


Table 4.1 Oceania: Forest Resources by Subregion

Subregion Land area Forest area 2000 Area change Volume andNatural Forest Total forest 1990–2000 above-ground

forest plantation (total forest) biomass(total forest)

000 ha 000 ha 000 ha 000 ha % ha/ 000 ha/ % m3/ha t/hacapita year

Australia and

New Zealand 795,029 159,547 2,938 162,485 20.4 7.2 –243 –0.1 58 65

Other Oceania 54,067 34,875 263 35,138 65.0 4.7 –122 –0.3 34 58

Total Oceania: 849,096 194,775 2,848 197,623 23.3 6.6 –365 –0.2 55 64

Total World: 13,063,900 3,682,722 186,733 3,869,455 29.6 0.6 –9,391 –0.2 100 109

SOURCE: UN Food and Agriculture Organization Global Forest Resource Assessment, 2000

200,000-hectare forest along the Gulf of Papua), Fiji, and the Solomon Islands.But in these and other Pacific Island states, human population pressure on thecoastal zones where mangrove forests exist has increased dramatically in re-cent years, and concerns about their future are mounting (Jaensch, 1996).

Regional TrendsThe people of Oceania enjoy more forest area per capita (6.6 hectares) thanany other region in the world. But this figure is skewed by conditions in NewZealand and Australia, which feature low populations and about 94 percent ofOceania’s total forest resources by land area. Collectively, New Zealand andAustralia boast 7.2 hectares of forest area per capita; by contrast, per capitaforest area for the remainder of Oceania is 4.7 hectares (UN Food andAgriculture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).

Most ancient or “old-growth” forests in Oceania have been cut, includingthose of Australia and New Zealand. All told, about 80 percent of these forestshave been lost, according to one study (Bryant, 1997), and 75 percent of theremaining forest is under moderate or high threat. But in Australia and NewZealand, where the majority of these forests were located, some cut-over areasonce again support mature forests, and remaining old-growth forests are

Forests 75

Forest area per capita (in hectares)7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0Africa Asia Europe North

and CentralAmerica

Oceania SouthAmerica

Total

Figure 4.1 Forest Area per Capita, by Region

SOURCE: UN Food and Agriculture Organization Forest Resources Assessment, 2000

being conserved. Commercial forest plantations, which represent 1.4 percentof the total forest area in Australia and New Zealand, also account for a grow-ing percentage of overall timber production. Still, logging of natural forestsremains a polarizing issue in both of these countries—and especiallyAustralia—as various constituencies labor to reach consensus on the indus-try’s economic and environmental impact.

Elsewhere in Oceania, deforestation did not emerge as a serious issue untilnineteenth-century European colonization. In the wake of European settle-ment, however, ambitious land-clearing efforts dramatically reduced forestarea on numerous islands. Coastal and lowland forests were converted toplantations that produced coconut, cocoa, and banana crops on a commercialscale, or cut down to provide space and materials for the development of sea-side communities and other agricultural operations. The emergence of com-mercial logging, with its arsenal of chainsaws and other efficient tree removaltools, has also contributed to forest loss in recent decades. But forest statusvaries widely by country and forest type; the French-controlled territory ofNew Caledonia, for instance, has implemented an array of conservation meas-ures that have preserved large areas of natural forestland, while other statesand territories, such as the Solomon Islands, are struggling to halt widespreadforest degradation and loss.


Table 4.2 Harvest from New Zealand’s Planted Forests (Actual to 2000 andForecast to 2040)

Actual Volume Forecast VolumeYear (million m3) Year (million m3)

1950 0.9 2000 18.01955 1.8 2005 28.81960 3.0 2010 31.31965 4.4 2015 32.01970 6.8 2020 34.61975 7.4 2025 41.91980 9.4 2030 43.31985 9.0 2035 51.41990 11.1 2040 52.51995 16.01999 15.7

SOURCE : NEFD Wood Supply Forecasts 2000.

NOTE:

1. This table illustrates the forecast wood supply in context with historical harvest levels.

2. The forecast starts in 2005.

3. The forecast assumes a target clearfell age of 28 years for radiata pine and a new planting level of40,000 hectares each year.

The Australian state of Tasmania

contains some of the world’s great

temperate forests, including such areas

as the Styx Valley,Tarkine, Picton,Weld,

Eastern Tiers, Great Western Tiers, and

the Tasman Peninsula. But

approximately 20,000 hectares of native

forests are clear-cut each year in

Tasmania, including 16,000 hectares on

public land. About 75 percent of the

forests cut on public land are old

growth, containing trees more than

110 years of age (Wilderness Society,

n.d.). As of 2000, only 18 percent of the

island state’s old-growth forest

remained. Nearly half of those old-

growth areas were immediately

threatened by logging, and only 10

percent were permanently protected

from logging (Forestry Tasmania, 2002).

These statistics appeared to run

counter to public sentiments. A 2001

survey conducted by the University of

Tasmania found that 70 percent of

Tasmanian citizens supported an end

to logging in the state’s remaining

old-growth forests (Wilderness

Society, n.d.).

Forestry Tasmania (FT) is the agency

charged with managing state-owned

forests on behalf of the public. FT

controls 1.5 million hectares of land, or

22 percent of Tasmania. About 1.25

million hectares of this land is classified

as “multiple-use native forest,”which is

open to logging.The agency has come

under increasingly harsh criticism for its

forest-management practices in recent

years. For example, FT constructs

logging roads that open up pristine

areas of old growth for clear-cutting by

private companies. Clear-cutting is

usually followed by burning, which

produces large quantities of smoke that

Woodchipping Depletes Tasmania’s Old-Growth Forests

(continues)

A former forest of red gum trees (Eucalyptu comaldulensi), now reduced to lumber awaits

woodchipping for the paper industry. Some environmentalists regard the production of

paper pulp from woodchipping as a waste of resources. WAYNE LAWLER; ECOSCENE/CORBIS

is harmful to the atmosphere and

discourages tourism. In addition, several

of FT’s controlled burns escape each

year and consume thousands of

hectares of forest.

FT has also faced criticism for

replacing native forests with

monospecific plantations. Such

plantations, which replace clear-cuts 68

percent of the time in Tasmania, do not

provide suitable habitat for native

wildlife. In addition, FT engages in the

controversial practice of using 1080

poison to kill the wallabies and

possums that browse on plantation

seedlings. Studies have shown that the

poison often kills unintended bird and

animal species, including some that are

threatened or endangered.

Most logging of old-growth forests

in Tasmania is undertaken to produce

woodchips, another aspect of timber

operations that has drawn the ire of

conservationists. Most very old trees are

transformed into woodchips—rather

than sawn logs or veneer timber—

because their age makes them more

prone to rot. But woodchipping creates

fewer jobs and economic benefits to

local people than logging for other end

uses. In fact, most of the woodchips are

exported to Asia, where they are

processed into paper products and

packaging materials.

According to the Australian Bureau

of Statistics, the export of woodchips

from Tasmania reached a record level of

5.58 million tons in 2000, nearly double

the level exported in 1995.Tasmania

thus exported more woodchips than the

rest of Australia combined.“Woodchips

are now exported in such volumes that

it is uneconomic to rely only on sawmill

waste and rejected timber from logging,

such as branches and broken, diseased,

or undersized trunks,”observed one

researcher.“Almost any tree species

seems suitable [for conversion to

woodchips], too.There is thus nothing

selective about logging for woodchips,

something the companies refer to quite

proudly as ‘efficient use with minimum

wastage.’However, taking such logging

waste out of the forests is not

ecologically desirable if regrowth is an

objective, and such a total removal

increases the likelihood of erosion and

siltation”(Aplin, 1998).

The increase in woodchipping can

be attributed in part to the Tasmanian

Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), which

proponents claimed would achieve an

appropriate balance between

conservation and resource extraction,

maximizing employment opportunities

and economic benefits for Tasmanian

citizens while simultaneously

safeguarding the long-term health of

area forests. But critics note that the

practical result of the RFA was to abolish

quotas and provide for unlimited

woodchip export volumes, while the

promised jobs and prosperity failed to

materialize. In fact, the logging royalties

paid to FT by private companies fall

short of covering the costs of forest

management, regrowth, and

infrastructure. Critics point to FT’s

operating deficit and argue that

Tasmanian forests are being sold off at a

loss to the state, while the forest-

products industry employs less than 2

percent of the Tasmanian workforce

(Wilderness Society, n.d.).

(continues)

Environmental groups have

launched a campaign to preserve some

of the remaining Tasmanian old-growth

forests. One focus of conservation

efforts has been the Styx Valley, which is

home to Eucalyptus regnans—the tallest

hardwood tree and tallest flowering

species in the world. Many trees in the

valley are more than 400 years old and

more than 90 meters (295 feet) tall.

About 1,000 hectares of the Styx Valley

is protected, while 22,000 hectares

consist of state-owned forest and is

being logged. Although a rule prohibits

cutting of Eucalyptus regnans over 85

meters (278 feet) tall, environmentalists

point out that this leaves many 300- and

400-year-old specimens available for

logging.“I don’t really see the value of

saving something just because it’s old,”

said one FT official (Clausen, 2001). In

addition, lone trees that are spared the

axe often fall within a few years because

of increased vulnerability to wind.

Some environmentalists dream of

creating Valley of the Giants National

Park to preserve the entire Styx Valley

area. Eager to publicize the idea, they

have created walkways for viewing the

giant trees and organized public tours

that have proven popular. Some people

believe that the giant trees of the Styx

Valley could be as important a tourist

attraction as California’s redwoods and

giant sequoias. “The Tasmanian forests

are much more than just trees,”one

scientist stated.“They go back virtually

unchanged for at least 60 million years.

If you found a community of animals on

earth that dated back, virtually

unchanged, for 60 million years you

would see most of that island state set

aside as a sanctuary to preserve these

unbelievably wonderful animals. But

because they are plants it’s a different

story. And yet these plants are the

climate controllers and they are

enormously important to our future. In

allowing ancient ecosystems to be

cleared and destroyed we are acting

like a third-world country. Shredding

the forests of antiquity for short-term

corporate profit is simply stupid”

(Saunders and Gee, 2002).

Sources:Aplin, Graeme. 1998. Australians and

Their Environment. Melbourne: Oxford

University Press.

Clausen, Lisa. 2001.“Kings of the Forest:

In Tasmania,Timber-Getters and

Conservationists Tussle over the Fate

of Australia’s Tallest Hardwoods.”Time

International, December 17.

Forestry Tasmania. 1999. Forestry

Tasmania Annual Report 1999/2000.

Hobart,Tasmania: FT.

———. 2002. Forestry Tasmania Annual

Report 2002. Hobart,Tasmania: FT.

Kirkpatrick, J. 1998.“Nature Conservation

and the Regional Forest Agreement

Process.” Australian Journal of

Environmental Management 5, no. 1.

Saunders, Kirsten, and Helen Gee. 2002.

“Chips on Our Shoulders:Tasmanians

Have Made Their Feelings Clear;Their

Ancient Forests Are Worth More than

Woodchips.”Habitat Australia

(February).

Wilderness Society.“Forestry Tasmania’s

Atrocious Environmental, Economic,

and Social Record.”Available at

http://www.wilderness.org.au/

member/tws/projects/Forests

/atrocious.html (accessed

December 26, 2002).

Eucalyptus species in Cooloangubra State Forest, New South Wales, Australia. WAYNE LAWLER;

ECOSCENE/CORBIS

AustraliaThe sixth-largest country in the world, Australia is an economically developednation with low population and land use pressure, and its forest holdings areby far the most extensive in Oceania. Despite the presence of large tracts ofarid land unable to support forests, Australia’s 154.5 million hectares of forest—including more than 42 million hectares of commercial forest—cover morethan 20 percent of its total land area. These forests are concentrated in a broadcrescent around coastal Australia, with mangroves, acacia, and other coastalspecies giving way to open eucalyptus forests as one moves into the conti-nent’s interior. Eucalypt hardwood forests, including the tall mountain ashstands in Victoria and the alpine ash forests of New South Wales and Victoria,constitute around 80 percent of Australia’s overall forest cover (UN Food andAgriculture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).Australia’s natural forest resources are further supplemented by plantationestates covering another 1.4 million hectares. The bulk of these plantationscultivate exotic species of pine and other softwoods.

The current character of Australia’s forests reflects millennia of alterationby humans. Australia’s Aborigine peoples utilized burning as a land-clearingtool, and it is believed that their reliance on fire may have contributed to anoverall diminishment of the rain forest and an attendant increase in the pres-ence of more fire-tolerant vegetation (Flannery, 1995; Young, 2000). But theEuropeans left a much more indelible imprint on Australian land, for theycleared large swaths of forest to make way for crop fields and sheep pastures,and to build their homes. Indeed, mid-nineteenth century land-selection lawsin Australia required settlers to “improve” their land by clearing it of woods.However, demand for timber for housing, fuel, fences, and other purposes be-came so great that by the 1870s, the authorities felt compelled to hand downrestrictions on certain types of clearing. For example, in New South Wales,regulations forbidding the removal of trees along rivers were issued, althoughthey were rarely enforced, and several timber reserves were formally set asidearound the continent. In 1873 South Australia authorities even began handingout financial rewards to landowners willing to plant trees on previouslycleared land, and two years later the state established the continent’s first for-est service (Carron, 1985).

During the first half of the twentieth century, Australian timber reservesgrew in number and size, but pressure on forests also escalated, especially inheavily forested coastal zones where communities and agricultural andranching activities congregated. Ecological damage associated with theseharvests was exacerbated by the absence of a regulatory framework for the

Forests 81

logging industry. In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the country experienced asurge in opposition to commercial logging operations, which were feedingescalating domestic and foreign demand for timber products. Oppositioncoalesced around forest losses in several specific locales including Tasmania,where old-growth forests were being sacrificed to deliver pulpwood to Asiandestinations, and New South Wales, where clear-cutting (or clear-felling, asthe practice is known in Australia) of forests to provide Japan with wood-chips triggered storms of protest (ibid.; Young, 2000).

Since that time new forest conservation policies have been implemented,and existing regulations have been strengthened. In 1992, Australia showed agenuine commitment to sustainable forest management with passage of itsNational Forest Policy Statement, a formal declaration of its intention to sus-tainably manage all its forests for future generations, including conservationreserves, public and private commercial forests, and plantations. This state-ment put heightened emphasis on devising management models that metconservation goals while simultaneously addressing employment and othereconomic concerns. Other important initiatives included the development ofan Australian Forestry Standard as a means of certifying forest managementpractices in Australia.

In recent years, Australia’s rate of deforestation has been modest whencompared with that of many other nations. From 1990 to 2000, Australia re-ported an annual deforestation rate of 282,000 hectares, a figure that is in parta reflection of improved forest assessment resources and methods. As a resultof this relatively modest output—and increased mechanization in the timberindustry—less than 1 percent of Australia’s workforce is employed directly inforestry, milling, and wood processing.

Despite the more restrained extractive activity of recent years, however,decades of largely unregulated cutting have left their mark. By the late 1990s,Australia had lost an estimated 80 percent of its original indigenous (old-growth) forest, including extensive tracts of rare forest types that supported awide array of flora and fauna. Today, Australia’s remnant indigenous forests areconfined almost entirely to Tasmania, Cape York, and remote locales in thenorthwest. Many of these still-existing old-growth forests have been added tothe country’s protected area system in recent years, but stands not shielded bylaw remain vulnerable in Tasmania—where only a fraction of the original old-growth forest cover remains—and elsewhere. In addition, conservationists re-main harshly critical of ongoing logging activities in some non–old-growthrain forests, especially in southeastern Australia and Tasmania (Bryant, 1997;Clayton, 1996). For example, clear-cutting remains a dominant practice inmany areas. This methodology has been criticized for destroying vital migra-


tion corridors and sanctuary areas in wilderness ecosystems, causing seriouserosion and soil compaction, and compromising water quality in area riversand streams. “Clear-felling is the equivalent of an army’s scorched earth pol-icy,” charged one analysis, “cutting all timber and often clearing or otherwiseeffectively killing all undergrowth” (Aplin, 1998). Critics of this approach con-tend that selective harvesting of commercially valuable species would meettimber needs while simultaneously preserving the integrity of forest ecosys-tems. Defenders, however, cite clear-cutting as the most efficient means ofgathering timber, and they point out that some clear-cut areas regenerate overtime into young woodlands that better suit some species of flora and fauna.

At the close of the twentieth century, less than 30 percent of Australia’sforests were privately owned, a notable contrast with Japan, Germany, theUnited States, and other developed countries with far higher rates of privateownership. However, private ownership of forests by timber companies andothers is higher in places like Tasmania, which has experienced heavy rates ofcut in recent years. All told, natural forests on private lands account for about30 percent of Australia’s total timber production, while plantations accountfor about 45 percent of total national output—a percentage that may well in-crease given continued investment in plantation estates.

The majority of Australian forests are owned and managed by public agen-cies at the local, state, and federal level. State forests are multiple-use publicforests in which timber production is an important management priority.Crown lands are other public forests in which logging may or may not occur.In these state and crown forests, about 60 percent of land is tenured for log-ging. Conservation reserves are public forestlands that are set aside by thecommonwealth government primarily for conservation or recreation. Dis-tribution of Australian forests between these three categories is relatively evenat 13 to 17 million hectares each, but the percentage of protected forest has in-creased steadily in recent years. Recent regional forest management agree-ments between states and the commonwealth have placed 42 percent ofaffected forests in formally recognized conservation reserves. Moreover, a va-riety of covenant arrangements have lent protected status to some privatelyowned forests. In addition, pastoral leasehold lands held by the governmentand subject to strict land-clearing regulations account for another 66 millionhectares (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2000, 2001; Young, 2000).

Today, many Australian forests are managed through a system of RegionalForest Agreements. These joint agreements between the commonwealth andstate governments provide a twenty-year “blueprint” for management and useof forests in a particular region. The overarching goal of these individual

Forests 83

plans, according to authorities, is to establish a world-class forest reserve sys-tem across Australia; engage and educate industries, local communities, andother entities with vested interests in local forests; and “ensure internationallycompetitive and ecologically sustainable management of the national forestestate” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000).

Australia’s forest management schemes are informed by monitoring andinventory systems that match those of the world’s leading forestry countries,and continuing investment in forestry research appears to be a national pri-ority. Indeed, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization has commentedthat the nation’s blend of financial wherewithal and political will has placedit in a position to “achieve very high standards of forest management,”though it also acknowledges that various constituencies within Australia—environmental groups, timber companies, rural communities, and others—re-main locked in a protracted and contentious effort to influence state andcommonwealth forest management programs: “There remains considerabledisparity in broader stakeholder perceptions of the appropriate emphasisthat should be placed on nature conservation objectives compared with eco-nomic development objectives. A separate dimension relates to social aspectsof forestry and, in particular, how the rights and aspirations of Aboriginalpeoples and Torres Strait Islanders in respect to their forest interests can bereconciled within national and regional frameworks for sustainable forestmanagement” (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2000, 2001).

These issues are in particular evidence in the northern and western reachesof Australia, where increased attention to indigenous land rights complicatesboth conservation and development objectives, and where notions of forestand biodiversity conservation are colliding violently with beliefs that the“Outback” constitutes the last untapped frontier of development opportunityon the continent (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Indeed, debate over the management of Australia’s forest resources has be-come so polarized that the quest to find common ground seems a more elu-sive, ephemeral goal with each passing year. “Private interests accusegovernment departments and agencies of poor management because theyhave not been commercial enough, while conservationists accuse private for-est companies of being solely interested in profits,” summarized one analyst.“The main argument of the companies is that public ownership by such largebodies as a state Forestry Commission, which in some states has a large num-ber of geographically widespread areas to manage, means that management istoo far removed from responsibility and accountability for a particular area of


forest. . . . The counter-argument is that if those economic factors are over-emphasized, other forest values are neglected” (Aplin, 1998).

This clash—which is also being played out in the United States, Canada,Russia, Brazil, and many other countries with significant forest areas—is un-likely to conclude to anyone’s complete satisfaction, given the high environ-mental, social, and economic stakes involved, and the unique aesthetic andspiritual appeal that forests have for many people. Conservationists havestrived to take full advantage of this dynamic, putting particular emphasis onpreservation of charismatic old-growth forests, which are recognized as lastbastions of habitat for many threatened species on the continent, and on theestablishment of large, contiguous refuge areas that encompass wildlife corri-dors and a multitude of habitat types. “But it is not only in old-growth foreststhat concerns about species extinction have been raised,” noted one analysis.“It is necessary to conserve wildlife not only in reserves, but also in forest thatis logged. Clear-felling, rather than selective logging, has become far morewidespread over the last 20 years. Animals that forage over large areas, rely onhollows in old trees for shelter, or are ‘central place foragers’ [larger and moresocial creatures that search for food in all directions from a central nest orhome] suffer under this practice” (Young, 2000).

Loggers, timber companies, and other proindustry advocates, however,contend that ecological damage from extraction activities has been overstated,and they claim that logging restrictions and bans in dry forest regimes haveincreased Australia’s vulnerability to wildfires, a long-time nemesis. Thesefires burn large areas of forest and woodlands each year, and in 2002 bushfiressinged an estimated 10 percent of the continent as widespread drought condi-tions created ample fuel and dried up creeks that might otherwise have servedas natural firebreaks (Christie, 2003). Logging proponents argue that theseconflagrations will worsen in the coming years without active efforts to re-duce fuelwood loads.

Logging, sawmilling, and woodchipping operations also are an importantsource of revenue and jobs in rural communities that have traditionally re-lied on extraction-based activities for revenue. As a result, families that havelong subsisted on timber-related jobs have watched the proliferation of for-est preserves with mounting alarm. “The main concern in the forests of theNew South Wales North Coast region, in Tasmania, and in North Queens-land has been the possibility of a complete cessation of logging as areas areadded to national parks and other reserves for conservation-related reasons.Conservationists point to possible new jobs in tourism and park manage-ment, but how realistic this is remains an open question, especially for the

Forests 85

older men who have spent all their long working lives in logging or saw-milling” (Aplin, 1998).

New ZealandNew Zealand’s natural forests receive less development/extraction pressurethan those of any other country in Oceania. Like Australia, New Zealand has ahigh ratio of land area to population and is economically prosperous. In ad-dition, it boasts a conservation-friendly social and political orientation,abundant forest resources (although few stands of original frontier forest re-main), high standards of forest management and monitoring, and extensive,thriving forest plantations that meet virtually all of its current domestic andexport needs.

Forest cover in New Zealand amounts to approximately 8.2 million hec-tares, approximately 30 percent of its total land area. More than 6.4 millionhectares of this total consist of natural or indigenous forests, while plantationforests account for another 1.8 million hectares (New Zealand Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry, 2001). Natural forests in the country include cooltemperate rain forests strung along the west side of South Island and through-out the mountainous North Island. These forests, composed primarily ofbeech, kauri, rimu, and tawa, are characterized by high forest canopies anddense understories. They have extremely high levels of biomass and are hometo a great variety of animals and plants, including many endemic species—those found nowhere else in the world.

But although many of New Zealand’s natural forests look mature andundisturbed, the country has actually lost a higher percentage of its originalforest cover—90 percent according to one study—than any other state inOceania. New Zealand’s islands were the last of the world’s large land areas tobe settled by humans, but since colonization—first by the Maori, 700 to 800years ago, then by Europeans—clearing for agriculture and other purposeshas removed large swaths of frontier forest. Today nearly all old-growthforests still standing in New Zealand are under the protective shield of thecountry’s extensive protected area network. The chief threats now facing theseforest ecosystems are exotic or invasive species, such as the red deer and theAustralian brush-tailed possum, which have decimated populations of someendemic flora (Bryant, 1997; World Wide Fund for Nature and WorldConservation Union, 1995).

All told, the New Zealand Crown (federal government) manages about 77percent of the country’s natural forest resources through its Department ofConservation. These areas are managed as protected areas, with an emphasison habitat and ecosystem conservation and provision of recreational oppor-


tunities. The remaining 23 percent of New Zealand’s natural forest holdingsare privately owned, but conservation is the guiding principle here, too.Landowners are legally bound by a 1993 amendment to the Forests Act of1949 to manage their natural forest areas in ways that maintain their capacityto provide products and amenities in perpetuity while also retaining theirecological and scenic value. This emphasis on sustainable models of environ-mental stewardship extends to commercial harvesting of privately ownedforests, which can only be undertaken with government-sanctioned sustain-able management plans and permits (New Zealand Ministry for the Environ-ment, 1997; New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2001).

In addition, New Zealand’s commitment to preservation of wildernessforests and sustainable use of commercial forests is enshrined in a number ofvoluntary measures, including the New Zealand Forest Code of Practice andthe New Zealand Forest Accord 1991. Moreover, several New Zealand forestshave obtained Forest Stewardship Council certification, and a process to de-velop a national certification process consistent with international standardsis being developed (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Global ForestResources Assessment 2000, 2001).

New Zealand’s ability to protect and sustainably manage virtually all of itsnatural forests, whether on Crown or privately held land, is directly attributa-ble to its formidable forest plantation industry. This network of plantation es-tates accounts for an incredible 99.7 percent of the country’s total timberharvest. Plantation forests have been established throughout the country, withthe largest concentration (about one-third of the total area) planted on thevolcanic plateau of central North Island. Other major forest growing areas in-clude Northland, East Coast and Hawkes Bay, Nelson and Marlborough, andOtago and Southland. These plantations, which covered about 1.8 millionhectares in early 2001, are mainly composed of pine species capable of excep-tional growth rates (New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2001).

Steady growth in plantation operations has also driven net gains in forestarea for New Zealand in recent years. From 1990 to 2000, New Zealand re-ported an average net gain in forest area of 39,000 hectares per year, and theaverage annual area of new planting from 1995 to 1999 was 62,000 hectares.Virtually all of the country’s plantation forests are under private ownership,with 91 percent either owned by private landholders or registered public com-panies. Only 3 percent of the total plantation area is held by the Crown gov-ernment, with another 6 percent controlled by local or state bodies (ibid.).

At the close of the 1990s, about 60 percent of the wood produced by theseoperations was exported in some form, and this percentage is projected to risemarkedly in the coming decade. Large plantation holdings will reach maturity

Forests 87

during that time, boosting annual harvests from the current 18 million cubicmeters to 30 million cubic meters or more by 2010 (ibid.).

The robust growth of plantation estates in New Zealand and elsewheretroubles some conservationists, who have expressed concern that their mono-cultural character precludes the development of complex ecosystems seen innatural forests. But defenders say that their presence makes it easier for NewZealand to take conservation steps, such as its May 2002 decision to end log-ging of native rain forest on the west coast of the South Island of NewZealand. According to this new plan, 130,000 wooded hectares scatteredacross twenty-nine forests previously under the control of a state-owned tim-ber operation will be transferred to the Department of Conservation, wherethey will be added to existing national parks or ecological areas. In some cases,these forests constitute the final links in the formation of contiguous pro-tected area units of considerable size and ecological importance.

OceaniaVirtually all of the forests contained in the remainder of Oceania are tropicalin nature, but species richness is greatest in the southwest Pacific (a geo-graphic region known as Melanesia) and declines gradually as one moves eastinto the ocean’s central (Polynesia) and northwest (Micronesia) sectors. In ad-dition to geographic proximity to mainland areas, other factors influencing


Clear cut area of a rain forest, Papua New Guinea. JAY DICKMAN/CORBIS

forest types on these islands include temperature, precipitation, and eleva-tion. Among the most notable forest types are mangrove forests, which areconcentrated in protected tidal zones; cloud forests, found at the highestpoints of Papua New Guinea and other countries with significant elevationgain; and dense lowland rain forests, many of which have been removed or de-graded by human activity. The many coral atolls that are a feature in all threeof these subregions support little in the way of trees or other vegetation(Mueller-Dombois and Fosenberg, 1998).

In terms of volume and land area, Papua New Guinea contains the over-whelming majority of forest in Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zea-land). It accounts for 87 percent of forest area in the region, and despitetroubling rates of deforestation, it continues to have a relatively high propor-tion of forest cover. Other countries with a high proportion of land in forestcover include the Solomon Islands, Fiji, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu, althoughall of these nations are much smaller than Papua New Guinea. Forest cover inthe remaining Pacific Island states and territories is very small (UN Food andAgriculture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).

Forests 89

Fiji 50%

Niue 64%

Papua New Guinea 86%

Samoa 65%

Solomon Islands 85%

Vanuatu 74%

Figure 4.2 Forest Cover (Percent of Total Land Area) in Some PICs

SOURCE: United Nations Environment Programme, 1999. Pacific Island Environment Outlook. Pg. 7.http://www-cger.nies.go.jp/geo2000/region/pieo.pdf

Many nations in this region are experiencing difficulty in managing theirforest resources in a manner that will sustain both ecological and economicpriorities over the long term. One basic problem in many countries is incom-plete, dated, or otherwise questionable data on the extent and character offorest estates. This paucity of information makes it difficult for governmentsto make informed decisions about the management and care of their forests.

In addition, few Pacific Island states have passed meaningful legislation orprograms to preserve existing forests—including endangered tree species—or reforest cleared areas. This shortcoming, claims the UN EnvironmentProgramme, “is threatening the local and regional biodiversity which consti-tutes the economic and cultural backbone of many Pacific peoples” (UNEnvironment Programme, 1999). After all, forest removal deprives people ofa resource that provides protection from storms, nurseries for fish and otherdietary staples, habitat for terrestrial species, aid in watershed protection,and a source of fuelwood and other forest products.

Moreover, poor stewardship of forests is adversely affecting the lives ofPacific Islanders in a host of undramatic but significant ways. For example,when forests are cleared or degraded, subsistence gardens that are a staple ofmany families’ diets must be moved farther from villages, and fuelwood mustbe carried longer distances. These trends can have a negative impact on familynutrition, with a resulting increase in health care responsibilities for women.This development, in turn, can harm women’s health and their ability to meetfamily and community responsibilities (ibid.).

Forest loss in the Pacific Islands is attributable to a combination of factors,including population growth, increased reliance on land-devouring shiftingcultivation practices, erosion of traditional conservation controls in the com-munity, pasture development, and increased commercial mining and loggingactivities. The latter factor has attracted particular notice in recent years, espe-cially in Papua New Guinea, where the bulk of the region’s forests are situated.But environmentally destructive logging practices—driven to a large extent byoffshore demand—are also a pressing concern in the Solomon Islands, Vanu-atu, Fiji, Niue, Samoa, and Tonga. Countries grappling with rampant conver-sion of forests to agricultural land, meanwhile, are typically those with heavypopulation densities, such as the Cook Islands, the Federated States ofMicronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, andSamoa. In many of these countries, the traditional reliance on fire to clearland for agriculture has emerged as a particularly vexing problem. In recentyears, for example, the Federated States of Micronesia have loss more forestarea to human-caused wildfires than to timber extraction or other forms ofland clearance (ibid.).


In Papua New Guinea, stewardship of forests is at a pivotal point. Prior to1991, logging companies and private landowners were logging at a feverishpace that virtually exhausted all commercial forest resources in the NewIreland and West New Britain Provinces and, in addition, compromisedspecies-rich coral reefs and coastal fisheries by increasing sedimentationloads in waterways that emptied into the sea (Papua New Guinea ForestAuthority, n.d.). One study sponsored by the Asia Pacific Action Group dur-ing this period characterized the situation in one PNG province thusly: “Itwould be fair to say, of some of the companies, that they are now roaming thecountryside with the reassurance of robber barons, bribing politicians andleaders, creating social disharmony and ignoring laws in order to gain accessto, rip out, and export the last remnants of the province’s valuable timber”(Marshall, 1990).

In 1991 the rapacious timber practices finally convinced Papua NewGuinea’s central government to make desperately needed proconservationchanges to its forestry regulations, and today Papua New Guinea still pos-sesses great swaths of tropical forest—about 40 percent of its original forestcover according to recent estimates. But the conservation measures imple-mented by PNG have only slowed—not stopped—the liquidation of thecountry’s forest resources. Fully 85 percent of PNG’s remaining stands of old-growth forest were under moderate or high threat from logging, mining, andagricultural operations in the late 1990s (Bryant, 1997). In fact, more thanone-third of Papua New Guinea’s total forest area—nearly 11 millionhectares—had been included under logging concessions, with another 3 mil-lion hectares scheduled for allocation. Annual log harvest from these conces-sions in 1999 was 2.097 million cubic meters—a total that excludes thevolume that was harvested using small-scale portable sawmills and removalsas a result of land clearing for agriculture or other land uses. The primarymarkets for this timber include China (including Taiwan), Japan, the Republicof Korea, and the Philippines (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, GlobalForest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).

Solomon Islands is another Pacific Island country that is struggling to insti-tute a more sustainable forest stewardship philosophy after years of short-sighted exploitation. At first glance, the situation does not appear dire.Approximately 88 percent of its tropical rain forests remain intact. But thecountry’s rate of logging of accessible forest areas has steadily risen in the pastfour decades, with most timber exported to Asia. By the close of the 1990s,about half of the accessible rain forest had been logged over, and analysts warnthat current rates of harvest will finish off these forests within a decade. Yet in-dependent assessments indicate that the government continues to approve

Forests 91

logging licenses that far exceed sustainable annual yields, and environmentalimpact assessments of logging proposals remain absent. These trends haveprompted forecasts of dramatic declines in national timber output—and in-come—in the coming years. These observers note that reforestation or regen-eration of carefully logged forests will take thirty to forty years, and thatreforestation or regeneration of damaged areas—which are far more com-monplace—will require forty-five to two hundred years (UN Food and Agri-culture Organization, 1997; UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Fiji, meanwhile, has experienced significant declines in its natural forestcover, especially in lowland areas where agricultural activities and populationcenters are concentrated. But about 30 percent of Fiji’s remaining forests re-ceive varying levels of protection in parks and reserves, and in recent years ithas kept its annual logging rate at sustainable levels. Moreover, the countryhas painstakingly developed significant mahogany and pine plantations thatare expected to help relieve logging pressure on wild forests. Indeed, logs har-vested from maturing mahogany plantations are expected to supplant na-tional forests as the major source of Fiji timber (UN Food and AgricultureOrganization, State of the World’s Forests 2001, 2001).

Of all the Pacific Island countries, New Caledonia has received the mostplaudits for its conservation-oriented forest management philosophy. “NewCaledonia has done an exceptional job of creating parks and reserves,” de-clared the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “New Caledonia’s forestsituation appears to be stable, with reasonable harvest levels, progressive for-est management, and a modest plantation program” (UN Food and Agri-culture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).

The challenges facing other Pacific Island nations wishing to follow the for-est conservation example laid out by New Caledonia are significant. For ex-ample, land tenure systems found in most of Oceania are a blend of individualand communal rights in which land itself cannot be sold, but the resourcescontained therein—including forests—can be sold. This situation has madethe creation of parks and protected areas a difficult, though not insurmount-able, challenge, and has often encouraged exploitive practices that turn theseresources into cash or other land uses with little thought to the future (UNFood and Agriculture Organization, State of the World’s Forests 2001, 2001).

But some countries have shown increased interest in addressing destructivelogging and other land-use activities by promoting responsible and sustain-able logging and farming practices. Efforts to strike an appropriate balancebetween natural reforestation and plantation establishment are also on theupswing. In addition, nonwood forest products (NWFPs) such as forest treenuts, traditional medicinal plants, bee-keeping, and butterfly farming are in-


creasingly recognized as a viable income-generating alternative to logging insome states. Many countries within Oceania are also signatories to interna-tional conventions and treaties focused on biodiversity conservation andother environmental issues. “Much remains to be done [in Oceania in therealm of forest conservation],” concluded the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization, “but on balance significant progress is being made” (UN Foodand Agriculture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, 2001).

If the countries of Oceania wish to build on their progress to date, however,observers believe that further emphasis will have to be placed on reducing therate of logging or tree cover removal to sustainable levels; effective implemen-tation of codes of logging practice (such as those recently created in Fiji,Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea) and increased reliance on selected harvest-ing techniques to reduce the adverse impacts of logging on social, environ-mental, and biodiversity elements; and increased use of natural reforestationto provide the next forest crop. In addition, Pacific Island states need to givegreater weight to the multitude of services that natural forests provide, in-cluding habitat for wildlife, reduction of soil erosion, and regulation of waterflow and quality. “Given the critical importance of forests and trees to theregion—socially, economically, and ecologically—it is imperative that the ef-fective implementation of appropriate policies and practices for the sustain-able use, management and development of forest and tree resources be a highpriority policy issue for Pacific Island countries” (UN Environment Pro-gramme, 1999).

Sources:Aplin, Graeme. 1998. Australians and Their Environment. Melbourne: Oxford Univ-

ersity Press.

Australia Bureau of Rural Sciences. 1998. Australia’s State of the Forests Report 1998.Canberra: BRS.

Australia National Land and Water Resources Audit. 2001. Australian AgricultureAssessment 2001. Canberra: National Land and Water Resources Audit.

———. 2001. Australia’s Native Vegetation. Canberra: National Land and WaterResources Audit.


Bryant, Dirk, D. Nielson, and L. Tangley. 1997. The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystemsand Economies on the Edge. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Carron, L. T. 1985. A History of Forestry in Australia. Canberra: Australian NationalUniversity Press.

Forests 93

Christie, Michael. 2003.“Bushfires Leave Country-Sized Scars on Australia,” PlanetArk,February 13. Available at http://www.planetark.org.avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=19798 (accessed February 2003).

Clayton, Mark. 1996. “Chipping Away at Australia’s Old-Growth Forests.” ChristianScience Monitor, April 24.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2002. Regional Forest Agreements, 2002. Available atwww.rfa.gov.au (accessed February 2003).

Flannery, Tim F. 1995. The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australian Landsand People. New York: Braziller.

Florence, R. G. 1996. Ecology and Silviculture of Eucalypt Forests. Collingwood,Victoria: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Jaensch, Roger. 1996. “An Overview of the Wetlands in Oceania.” In Wetlands, Bio-diversity and the Ramsar Convention. Edited by A. J. Hails. Cambridge, UK:Ramsar.

Lieth, H., and M. J. A. Werger, eds. 1989. Ecosystems of the World. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Marshall, G. 1990. The Barnett Report: A Summary of the Report of the Commission ofInquiry into Aspects of the Timber Industry in Papua New Guinea. Hobart,Australia: Asia Pacific Action Group.

McNeely, J. A., J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall, eds. 1994. Protecting Nature: RegionalReviews of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and F. R. Fosenberg. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical PacificIslands. New York: Springer-Verlag.

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 1997. The State of New Zealand’sEnvironment 1997. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2000. National Exotic ForestDescription: National and Regional Wood Supply Forecasts 2000. Wellington:MAF.

———. 2001. Forestry Sector Issues. Wellington: MAF.

Nybakken, J. 1993. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach. New York: HarperCollins.

Papua New Guinea Forest Authority. n.d. Country Report—Papua New Guinea. Rome:FAO.

Soulé, M. E., and John Terborgh. 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foun-dations of Regional Reserve Networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Spalding, M. D., F. Blasco, and C. D. Field, eds. 1997. World Mangrove Atlas. Okinawa,Japan: International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems.

Thaman, R. R., and W. A. Whistler. 1995. Samoa, Tonga, Kiribati and Tuvalu: A Reviewof Uses and Status of Trees and Forests in Land Use Systems with Recom-mendations for Future Actions. Rome: FAO.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Pacific Islands Environmental Outlook. Availableat http://www.unep.org (accessed December 2002).

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1997. Asia Pacific Forestry Sector OutlookStudy. Rome: FAO.



———. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Rome: FAO.


World Wide Fund for Nature and World Conservation Union-IUCN. 1995. Centres ofPlant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation. Cambridge, UK:WWF.

Young, Ann. 2000. Environmental Change in Australia since 1788. 2d ed. Melbourne:Oxford University Press.

Forests 95

5

Agriculture—A. M. M A N N I O N

Agriculture is widespread throughout Oceania and is a primary economicactivity. In Papua New Guinea and many other Pacific Island states, the

production of sufficient food to support indigenous populations is an all-important activity, as is the need for agriculture to generate income throughexport. Indeed, farming is an essential component of the social and economicfabric of numerous Oceanic communities, large and small. However, histori-cally unsustainable models of farming have also been cited as a leading factorin the loss of wilderness, natural habitat, and biodiversity across Australia,New Zealand, and the numerous island states of the South Pacific. Specificproblems laid at the feet of the farming and ranching sectors include landdegradation, including soil erosion and desertification (the spread of aridconditions and associated reduction in plant growth); the pollution of ma-rine and freshwater environments by agrochemicals and animal waste; loss offloral and faunal biodiversity; and habitat alteration and fragmentation.Agricultural activities have also contributed to the deliberate and accidentalintroduction of alien plants and animals, some of which now threaten in-digenous species with extinction through competition and habitat alteration.In addition, industrial farming’s heavy consumption of fossil fuels has beenimplicated as a contributor to global climate change (Mannion, 1997;Mannion, 2002).

Agricultural Resources in Australia and OceaniaAt the dawn of the twenty-first century, nearly 60 percent of the land area in“developed” Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) is used for agriculture.Land set aside for permanent pasture accounts for most of this total—approx-imately 52 percent of the total land area in these two nations is devoted to pas-toral use—with less than 7 percent of the land area given over to arablecropping. In the developing nations of Oceania, comprising Papua New

97

Guinea (PNG) and other Pacific Island states, only about 4 percent of the totalland area is used for agriculture, with land area divided almost equally be-tween arable land and permanent pasture.

These percentages reflect the chasm between subsistence and industrializedagricultural systems that exists in this part of the world. In the subsistence-oriented agricultural systems that are dominant in many parts of Oceania,only sufficient food and materials to support an individual family are pro-duced, and the energy input is human or animal labor. In the industrialized,commercial agricultural systems that typify the landscapes of Australia andNew Zealand, commodities are produced for trade and export. The emphasisis on high productivity, often through generous doses of fertilization, irriga-tion, and mechanization.

Within the vast realm of Oceania, which includes tropical, subtropical,and temperate environments, there exists considerable variation between na-tions in terms of crops. Indeed, crops produced in the South Pacific rangefrom the tropical fruits such as mango and coconut that are cultivated pri-marily on the smaller islands to vast quantities of wheat, maize, cotton, andassorted meat products generated in Australia and New Zealand.

Environmental Effects of Agriculture in OceaniaOceania’s natural landscapes have been influenced by agriculture for millen-nia. Aboriginal populations in Australia and Papua New Guinea dating backat least 50,000 years are known to have used fire to assist in the exploitation ofplant and animal resources. Environmental alteration of the Pacific Islands re-gion accelerated with colonization by Polynesian cultures. Another thresholdwas reached in the mid-eighteenth century with the advent of Europeans.Indeed, European colonialism prompted a new and extensive wave of envi-ronmental alteration, especially in Australia and New Zealand. Europeanfarming systems were introduced and an export trade developed to supply theexpanding European markets whose populations were increasing in the wakeof the Industrial Revolution.

During the twentieth century, Australia and New Zealand imposed dra-matic alterations on their lands in order to enhance agricultural production.These changes ranged from damming of rivers for irrigation to massive landclearance for fields to overgrazing of natural pasturelands. Other PacificIsland nations also undertook extensive changes to natural areas for cultiva-tion, ranching, and other purposes. Much of this alteration was localizedaround communities, leaving more remote islands and other land areasundisturbed. But in some cases, land degradation was more widespread.


Clearing of land via fire for agriculture, for example, compromised soil qual-ity so much on Fiji’s Viti Levu and Wallis and Futuna that only hardy ferns cannow grow there (Nunn, 1994).

Although data on land degradation across the Oceania region are incom-plete, it has been estimated that the Pacific region of the world—includingAustralia and New Zealand—contains more than 100 million hectares of de-graded soil (UN Environment Programme, 1999). Overwhelmingly, the chiefculprits in this degradation hail from the agriculture sector. Indeed, overgraz-ing, which renders soils vulnerable to wind and water erosion, has been citedas the leading cause of degradation, accounting for 80 percent of the total.Another 8 percent has been attributed to crop agriculture, while deforesta-tion—some of which is undertaken for the specific purpose of making landavailable for plowing and grazing—accounts for the remaining 12 percent(Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific, 1995). This break-down of causes is skewed, however, by large livestock operations in NewZealand and Australia; other Pacific Island countries equipped with less graz-ing land are much less dependent on sheep, cattle, and other livestock fortheir livelihoods.

Nonetheless, smaller Pacific Island nations with growing populations areincreasingly faced with unsustainable demands on their limited land re-sources. “High population growth rates and the displacement of traditionalland management systems by introduced agricultural systems, mining andforest utilization have placed serious stress on land resources and the commu-nities that depend on them,” reported the UN Environment Programme.Moreover, increased emphasis on cash crop schemes (which rely on largeplantations) over traditional subsistence agriculture has encouraged incur-sions into valuable habitat areas, even when they are not well suited for farm-ing. In Fiji and Samoa, for example, commercial agricultural systems havepushed subsistence gardens onto marginal soils and steep slopes vulnerable toerosion. In the Solomon Islands, meanwhile, pressure to squeeze every ounceof productivity out of existing fields has resulted in severe environmentaldegradation (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Efforts to address these troubling trends are proliferating, especially inplaces like Australia and New Zealand, where recognition of environmentalproblems is high and where significant institutional and financial resourcescan be brought to bear. Australia’s National Land Management Program—orLandCare, as it is more commonly known—is an indicator that land-use is-sues have assumed heightened priority in the region. But establishing envi-ronmentally desirable practices will be difficult without adjustments in otherpolicy areas. “[There] is a widespread belief that the most important task to

Agriculture 99

Table 5.1 The Extent of Agriculture in Oceania for the Year 2000

Area of Area of % TotalTotal area arable % permanent of total agricultural %of Oceania Land of total pasture land area of total

1000 ha 1000 ha land area 1000 ha area 1000 ha land area

Developed 801,175 51,859 6.47 418,200 52.20 477,080 58.92

Developing 55,265 600 1.09 701 1.27 2357 4.26

Total 856,440 52,459 6.12 418,901 48.91 474,437 55.40

SOURCE: UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002.

achieve a more sustainable agriculture is the raising of community awarenessand changing of farmers’ attitudes to their land. [In reality], what is requiredare profitable and practical conservation farming techniques and manage-ment strategies. Where these are not available the best assistance is researchdirected at producing . . . solutions, rather than a reliance on evangelical callsto better farming and changing attitudes. . . . The dangers of simple prescrip-tions are that they will not encourage the sustained commitment of the socialresources required to continue the unending search for sustainable rural landuses” (Barr and Carey, 1992).

Regional Trends in Agriculture

AustraliaEuropean colonization of Australia in the mid-eighteenth century promptedthe introduction of European-style agricultural systems onto a land that hadpreviously been manipulated primarily by hunter-gatherer aboriginal com-munities. Although there is considerable evidence for the controlled use offire to manipulate plants and animals for food procurement by aboriginalsprior to European annexation, there is little evidence for permanent environ-mental change in a land that was, and still is, subject to numerous and largenatural wildfires.

When European settlers arrived, they not only brought old practices to anew land but also harnessed indigenous practices such as firing to clear sub-stantial swaths of Australia’s natural vegetation for pasture and cultivation.According to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, some 13 percentof Australia has been cleared of its pre-European vegetation cover. The great-est change has occurred in the southeast and southwest regions of the coun-try, where land use and population settlement have been concentrated. Forexample, in Victoria and western Australia, where intensive forms of agricul-ture are practiced, only 37 percent and 56 percent of the total area of nativevegetation remains intact, respectively (Australia National Land and WaterResources Audit, Australia’s Native Vegetation, 2001).

Australia devotes a greater share of its total land area to agriculture—including pastoralism and cropping—than any other land use. Approximately60 percent of the continent is devoted to one agricultural purpose or another,though the majority of this is natural rangelands and other forms of pasture.Depending on the season, between 20 and 25 million hectares are seeded withcrops, while another 94 million hectares of pasturelands are grazed(Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). Indeed, livestockproduction—and especially sheep ranching—has long been a staple of theAustralian economy. Ranching is practiced in many parts of Australia, but it is

Agriculture 101

especially strong in the arid and semiarid rangelands of Australia’s dry tropi-cal regions of the northeast and the interior, although pastures in the temper-ate and high-rainfall zones of the southeast also have large sheep flocks atmuch higher grazing intensities. These areas of natural rangeland are able tosustain large sheep populations, but they are not suited for intensive produc-tion of crops or other livestock. Nonetheless, Australia does support a beefcattle industry that is 20 million head strong. These ranches are widespreadbut are especially important in the northern and central regions of Queens-land and the Northern Territory. Cattle are reared on a semiextensive basis,and many are prepared for slaughter in feedlots. Dairy herds rely on rain-fedpastures and intensive production systems; they are concentrated in Victoria(60 percent of the country’s total dairy herds), but dairy operations are alsopresent to a lesser degree in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, andWestern Australia. These farms produce nearly 11 billion liters of milk annu-ally, two-thirds of which is exported to the Pacific Rim and other tradingpartners (Australia National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian Agri-culture Assessment 2001, 2001).

Only 6.5 percent of Australia’s land area is used for arable cropping, but thisrelatively small area produces large quantities of cereal crops, notably wheat,rice, potatoes, and cotton. The country’s capacity to generate large quantities


Cotton harvest in New South Wales, Australia. LANCE NELSON/CORBIS

of these crops from relatively modest land area reflects the widespread avail-ability and utilization of irrigation networks and fertilizers, as well as invest-ments in the latest in agricultural mechanization and technology. Graincrops are grown in both the north (Queensland) and the south (New SouthWales, Victoria, Tasmania, and the southwestern region around Perth), and75 percent of the grains produced from these regions are exported. Wheat isparticularly important in terms of area planted and overall production,though productivity per unit area of land is low, at about 1.8 tons per hectare,in comparison with the average world production of 2.7 tons per hectare.This is largely due to limited water availability and vulnerability to drought.Such constraints have always been imposed by Australia’s environment, butyields have increased by a factor of four throughout the twentieth centurybecause of improved farming practices designed to conserve water, such asstubble mulching, crop rotation, and minimum tillage practices (AustraliaNational Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian Agriculture Assessment2001, 2001).

Cotton is produced in central Queensland, central New South Wales, andthe border area between those two regions, and its production has increasedsubstantially since the 1960s, when irrigation schemes were first developed.Output has increased markedly in both irrigated and dry-land enterprises,

Agriculture 103

Table 5.2 Remaining Natural Vegetation in Areas of Intensive Agriculture inAustralia’s States

Area of Native VegetationRemaining km2 % Remaining

Australian Capital Territory 1,620 69

New South Wales 470,604 67

Northern Territory 186,629 98

Queensland 772,452 72

South Australia 174,966 64

Tasmania 42,520 80

Victoria 84,541 37

Western Australia 234,423 56

SOURCE: Based on National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2001

and production in years of normal rainfall now reaches 3 million bales annu-ally. Severe drought conditions were expected to reduce Australia’s 2002–2003cotton crop by as much as half, however, as nearly all of the nation’s cotton isgrown with the use of irrigated water.

Despite such setbacks, Australia today ranks as the third-largest exporter ofcotton in the world, with genetically modified (GM) cotton crops accountingfor a steadily greater percentage of the total produced. Indeed, GM cotton isexpected to account for about half of the nation’s total production in 2002,and it may well take over the entire crop in the near future. Sugar cane is an-other water-intensive crop favored by Australian growers. Concentrated in thewet tropics of the Queensland coast, effluents generated by these plantationsand subsequently deposited in ocean waters have been cited as a health men-ace to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. Other important crops include rice,vegetables, and fruit, including grapes nurtured in the famous vineyards ofWestern Australia.

Genetically altered crops are also likely to occupy a greater role in the sec-tor. The emergence of GM cotton has been well documented, and governmentinvestments in other areas have increased in recent years. In 2002, for in-stance, the Australian government approved an A$28 million (U.S.$16 mil-lion) grant to establish a Cooperative Research Centre for Sugar IndustryInnovation through Biotechnology. Advocates of GM foods claim that the de-velopment of these crops can dramatically reduce dependence on herbicidesand fertilizers that can degrade soil and freshwater resources. For example, theintroduction of GM cotton to Australia in the mid-1990s has reduced pesti-cide spraying by 40 to 60 percent. Moreover, increased productivity associatedwith GM seeds raises the possibility of increasing productivity without in-creasing the land area under cultivation, which spares natural habitats fromclearing. In addition, the development of drought-resistant and salt-tolerantstrains of crops is attractive to a country that is increasingly concerned aboutits diminishing freshwater supplies, vulnerability to drought, and trends insoil acidity. Applications of biotechnology in animal husbandry, such as de-velopment of disease-resistant strains of sheep and cattle, may also prove im-portant. These and other innovations in biotechnology and informationtechnology have the potential to change the face of agriculture not only inAustralia but also worldwide in the coming decades (Australia Department ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2000).

Enthusiasm for GM (also known as transgenic) crops is not universal, how-ever. Critics of GM foods believe that the full impact of this technology on theenvironment has not been adequately studied. Potential hazards cited by foesinclude breeding between GM and non-GM species that creates weed and in-sect populations resistant to toxins; increased risk of allergic reactions and


other negative health effects in humans over time; disappearance of wildspecies of flora and fauna; and an inability of poor communities in Oceaniaand elsewhere to purchase GM seeds and crops (Paarlberg, 2000; Pinstrup-Anderson and Schioler, 2001). These concerns have prompted several Aus-tralian state governments to consider outright bans on genetically modifiedcommercial food crops.

As Australian ranchers and farmers enter the twenty-first century, majorenvironmental issues confronting them include accelerated rates of soil ero-sion, acidification, and salinity; natural habitat loss and alteration from graz-ing and land-clearing; the influx of invasive species; and water pollutioncaused by the deposition of agrochemicals into rivers, lakes, and marine areas(Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). Diminishing soilquality is possibly the paramount concern from an economic and food secu-rity perspective. “Although it is the most basic of our agricultural resources,the soil is also our most finite and, in Australia, our most delicate resource”(Lovett and Duggin, 1992). Soil erosion stemming from overgrazing and landclearance for cultivation is problematic throughout Australia, and particularlyin its arid interior and northern regions. Moreover, the effects of this havebeen exacerbated in some locales by drought conditions. Land salinizationalso afflicts large regions of the Australian countryside, partially because ofexcessive extraction from groundwater and surface water sources. Approx-imately 5.7 million hectares of land in Australia are now at risk from salinity,and the size of that area could triple by 2050 (National Land and WaterResources Audit, 2001). Meanwhile, the area of soil affected by acidificationhas reached an estimated 13 million hectares. This problem, which has arisenbecause of the draining of coastal soils and the acidification of agriculturalsoils, could be addressed through lime applications, but ranchers and farmerssaddled with thin profit margins are reluctant to make these investments.

From an environmental perspective, meanwhile, land clearance and itsrepercussions for Australia’s flora and fauna are a major concern. For years,conservation efforts in this realm were concentrated in southern and easternAustralia, the site of the country’s major population centers and most inten-sive land use. But as one government report noted: “[T]here is now a growingappreciation among government and the community of the potentially sig-nificant effects of altered fire, grazing and hydrological regimes, pests andweeds and mining on biodiversity in the Extensive Land-use Zone in central,western and northern Australia. The pastoral industry covers about 70 per-cent of the continent, and grazing in arid and semiarid regions is consideredpartly responsible for the extinction of many plant species and continues tothreaten around one-quarter of the plant species listed as threatened”(Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Agriculture 105

In light of the concerns raised in recent years about agriculture’s impact onthe Australian environment, both government establishments and universitiesare engaged in a wide range of agricultural and related environmental research.Future developments are likely to be influenced by the dissemination of bestpractices that attempt to reduce environmental impacts while increasing pro-ductivity and biotechnology. Examples of best practices include soil and water


Many species of animals have been

introduced to Australia since the arrival

of Europeans. Some of these species—

such as sheep, cattle, and red foxes—

were introduced intentionally for

breeding or for sport, while others—

such as mice—arrived by accident. In

either case, introduced species have

had a marked effect on Australia’s

environment and biodiversity. One of

the most problematic of all the exotic

species found in Australia is the rabbit,

which has spread across the continent

and taken a serious toll on both pastoral

productivity and native flora and fauna.

Rabbits were initially introduced in

Tasmania for sport in the early

nineteenth century.The creatures

proved so adept at reproducing that

they soon became pests, prompting

Tasmanian wildlife officials to warn

mainland Australians against importing

rabbits. In 1859, however, sportsmen

introduced twenty-four wild gray

rabbits to Victoria; within three years,

the rabbit population in the region had

grown out of control.

Rabbits spread across the Australian

continent in waves throughout the

remainder of the 1800s, despite

attempts to stop them through

trapping, shooting, poisoning, and

fencing.The species was declared illegal

in 1880, at the same time that feral cats

were protected in hopes that they

would prey upon the rabbits. Still, by the

early 1900s rabbits were found in all but

the tropical regions of Australia.They

were so numerous in some places that

farmers would herd them into fenced

areas and club them to death by the

hundreds.

In 1950, Australia introduced its

most effective weapon yet against the

rabbit invasion—the myoxomatosis

virus.This virus, along with the

availability of new poisons, helped

reduce rabbit numbers significantly

over the next few years. For example,

southern Australia showed a 95 percent

decrease in rabbit population, which

was accompanied by a rapid increase in

wool production among sheep farmers.

But the rabbits eventually built up

resistance to the virus, which did not

spread well to dry, inland areas, and

their numbers rebounded.The 1969

introduction of the European rabbit flea

led to another temporary decline in the

rabbit population, but the creatures

Introduced Rabbits Overrun Pastoral Australia

(continues)

conservation, including improved use of irrigation water to prevent waterlogging and soil degradation, and improved use of fertilizers. Many of thesemodels have been embraced in Australia. For example, some ranchers havemodified their pastoral grazing patterns to allow natural restoration of erosion-prone areas. In addition, an ambitious national land management programknown as Landcare was initiated by the National Farmers’ Federation and the

Agriculture 107

soon managed to return in even greater

numbers. By the 1990s, the population

of rabbits in Australia was estimated at

200 million. Experts noted that the

rabbits consumed enough pasturage

each year to feed about 4 million cattle

(Young, 2000).

Rabbits have caused a variety of

environmental problems in Australia.

The most severe problems have

occurred in pastoral areas, where the

creatures have caused tremendous

changes in plant communities. Rabbits

compete for food with sheep and other

livestock in pastures.This added grazing

pressure often eliminates native plants

and allows less desirable species—

including exotic plants and weeds—to

take their place. In addition, rabbits eat

tree seedlings and buds, reducing tree

growth. Furthermore, rabbit grazing

and tunneling decrease agricultural

productivity and increase soil erosion.

By changing plant communities and

eliminating native plants, rabbits have

also had a disastrous effect on several of

Australia’s native animals. For example,

competition with rabbits for food

helped reduce distribution of the bilby

to 20 percent of its original range (ibid.).

This small marsupial is now virtually

extinct, surviving only in tropical

regions where rabbits do not. Rabbits

also contributed to the displacement of

bettongs, or rat kangaroos, which fed on

the seedlings of woody weeds that have

subsequently spread unchecked into

pasturelands.

Despite the environmental harm

caused by introduced rabbits in

Australia, some people still resist

programs to reduce their numbers.

Some rabbit supporters come from the

industry that has developed around

rabbit fur and meat. Others tend to

view rabbits as cute, furry, gentle

creatures and are reluctant to

acknowledge the damage they cause.

Groups such as the Foundation for a

Rabbit-Free Australia have tried to

increase public support for eradication

programs by characterizing rabbits as

dangerous pests that threaten native

plants and wildlife.

Sources:Jarman, Peter, and Jeremy Smith. 1992.

“The Invaders.” In The Unique

Continent. Edited by Jeremy Smith.

Queensland: University of Queensland

Press.

Young, Ann. 2000. Environmental

Change in Australia since 1788. 2d ed.


Australian Conservation Foundation in the mid-1990s, and it has spawnedseveral like-minded programs, including the Dune Care, RiverWatch, Bush-care, and Coastcare initiatives.

The full effects of these volunteer land stewardship programs will only bevisible with the passage of years, but acceptance of their precepts has beenhigh among targeted groups. For example, in 1999 more than 80 percent ofAustralian farmers indicated that they had participated in some type of Land-care activity (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Moreover, the gap between environmental destruction and environmentalsustainability in agriculture is narrower in Australia in some important re-spects than it is in other regions of the world. Australia already has more than7.5 million hectares of land under organic management, and it uses muchlower levels of pesticides and fertilizers than most other developed countries;thus environmental contamination from those pollutants is not as severe.This phenomenon is undoubtedly due at least in part to the comparativelysmall size of government subsidies for such expenditures in Australia, but ini-tiatives to further reduce agrochemical use have nonetheless been launched bythe horticultural, cotton, grain, and sugar cane industries in recent years(Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

New ZealandAgriculture is a primary industry and source of income for New Zealand. Itcontributes 8 percent of the country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) andemploys an estimated 8.3 percent of its workforce. But agriculture is also thedominant cause of alteration and removal of natural vegetation communities.Pasturelands account for the bulk of this loss, a reflection of the importance oflivestock to New Zealand’s economy.

Nearly half of New Zealand’s total land area is now classified as pasture, andthis land supports some 57 million animals in free-range agricultural systems.Land used for pasture comprises natural tussock grassland and created pas-tures that may contain exotic grass and legume species; the latter occupy al-most 10 million hectares (about 36 percent of the land area) while the formeroccupy almost 4 million hectares (approximately 14 percent of the land area).Sheep predominate, but other livestock are also reared in significant numbers,including beef cattle, dairy cattle, pigs, and chickens. Indeed, there are an esti-mated 17,000 commercial sheep and cattle farms in New Zealand; the averagesize of these enterprises is 550 hectares, with average holdings of 2,830 head ofsheep and 230 beef cattle (New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,Sectors/Animals, 2002).


The extensive rearing of animals is a relatively low-energy system, as energyconsumption of fossil fuels is minor compared with other forms of agricul-ture, to say nothing of commercial and industrial sectors. Nevertheless, envi-ronmental impacts associated with ranching include modification or removalof natural vegetation and degradation of soil and freshwater sources andprocesses. In recent years, however, sheep farming and other forms of pas-toralism have declined in response to the suspension of some governmentsubsidies and increased government emphasis on agricultural diversification(New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997). However, substantialgrowth has occurred in deer farming. There is a thriving export trade not onlyin venison (deer meat), which is a lower-fat alternative to beef, but also in vel-vet; this latter is the soft skin on the surface of the growing deer antlers, usedin traditional Asian medicines. New Zealand now has one of the largest deerindustries in the world, and further growth is anticipated (Trade Partners UK,2002). Investment in dairy farming—and especially intensive, large-scale op-erations—has also increased. But dairy farming’s consumption of energy hasrisen dramatically, and it is increasingly reliant on artificial nitrogen fertilizersthat have been cited as a factor in reduced water quality in rivers and otherfreshwater sources. Other environmental impacts associated with this intensi-fication include increased trampling and compaction of fragile soils, and in-creased volumes of animal waste that degrade land and water resources alike.

Agriculture 109

The export of venison is a thriving industry in New Zealand. COREL

New Zealand’s arable agriculture sector is also energy intensive. Arablecropping dominates the Canterbury Plain west of Christchurch in centralSouth Island, though most farms also carry animal herds. The region’syields—which are well above global averages—reflect high energy inputsthrough artificial fertilizer use, mechanization, and crop protection chemicalssuch as herbicides and pesticides. High application rates, though, have beenblamed for eutrophication of waterways and soil acidification, and runofffrom treated fields has contaminated rivers, wetlands, and coastal areas withchemical agents contained in pesticides, defoliants, and fertilizers. NewZealand also has a large horticulture sector that caters to the home market.For example, apple production is important in Hawke’s Bay, North Island, andNelson, South Island, while vine cultivation is concentrated in Marlboroughin the hinterland of Wellington, North Island. Like dairying and cereal crop-ping, this sector is also energy intensive (ibid.).

Although New Zealand’s agricultural profile is changing as the emergingmarkets of Asia continue to grow, and although other sectors such as tourismand manufacturing continue to develop, New Zealand’s economy remainspredominantly agricultural in character. The nation’s future agricultural pro-ductivity is likely to be boosted by biotechnological innovations that includeherbicide- and insect-resistant cereals, improved varieties of fruits, and im-proved animal health. Although field trials of several genetically modifiedcrops have been undertaken, no such crops are yet being grown commercially(New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997).

Papua New GuineaAgriculture in Papua New Guinea is quite different from that of neighboringAustralia and New Zealand. Its physical environment is unique in terms of cli-mate, terrain, and vegetation cover, and it is markedly different in terms ofeconomic development and social conditions. Papua New Guinea’s economyis focused on the production and export of primary commodities such asminerals, wood, fish, and agricultural products—primarily coffee, tea, oil palm,cocoa, copra, and rubber. These are produced commercially, either in planta-tions or by small subsistence landholders. Sweet potato, sago, and banana arethe major crops produced on a subsistence basis, but cultivation of taro,maize, and cassava also is substantial. Sweet potato, the most important staplecrop, is grown by about 60 percent of the rural population; it occupied102,000 hectares and generated 480,000 tons in 2000 (UN Food and Agricul-ture Organization, 2002). Sago and banana are the second and third most im-portant crops and are the primary staples for 10 percent and 8 percent of therural population, respectively (Allen et al., 2001).


Only a small proportion of Papua New Guinea’s land area is used for agri-culture. Cropland occupies less than 1.4 percent of the land area and perma-nent pasture less than 0.4 percent (UN Food and Agriculture Organization,2002). Factors contributing to the country’s light farming presence includerugged topography, which makes access and cultivation difficult and produceshigh susceptibility to soil erosion, and Papua New Guinea’s extensive tropicalforests, which have made logging a more lucrative pursuit. Nonetheless, severallarge estates that cultivate coffee, cocoa, and other products for export do exist.These are usually monocultural in nature, specializing in a single crop that isgrown using relatively high inputs of fossil fuels and high numbers of laborers.

Subsistence-based agricultural systems are low-energy-input systems pri-marily based on swidden or shifting cultivation, whereby small forested areasof one to three hectares are cleared by burning to release land and nutrients fortwo or three years of crop cultivation; when productivity declines, the familymoves on to cultivate another area, leaving forest to reclaim the abandonedcropland. Where land is not left long enough for forest to recolonize, soil ero-sion and other forms of degradation occur. Population growth is contributingto shortened fallow periods in many areas of the country. This phenomenon isparticularly apparent on gently sloping land in the highland provinces, urbanhinterlands, and some islands. In some extreme cases, fallow periods are nolonger a component of the cropping system (Hanson et al., 2001).

Papua New Guinea’s annual 2 percent rate of population increase also indi-cates that future expansion of agricultural land is probably inevitable, barringan unexpected surge in the productivity of existing agricultural land. Part ofthe effort to increase food production and improve nutritional standardscould involve an increase in livestock. Indeed, increased livestock rearing hasbeen described as a “prerequisite for national food security,” provided it is ac-complished in a sustainable manner. For example, an emphasis on small ani-mals such as rabbit, geese, and quail would have a much smaller impact on theenvironment than larger domestic species such as sheep or cattle, providedthat operations are developed and maintained in an environmentally sensitivemanner (Maika, 2001). Increased productivity through genetically modifiedcrop strains and expanded use of plant-derived pesticides may also be pur-sued, although Papua New Guinea has undertaken little research activity inthese areas to date (Schuhbeck and Bokosou, 2001).

The Remaining Islands of MelanesiaAgriculture is practiced in all of these islands, most of which produce cashcrops for export as well as staple crops for home consumption. Sweet potato,coconut, taro, yam, and banana are particularly important staples, while cash

Agriculture 111

crops include coconut, coffee, and cocoa. Agriculture has altered the environ-ment of all these islands, and in most cases it is the primary cause of biodiver-sity loss and environmental change, especially in relatively flat coastal areas.Moreover, the need to generate cash coupled with rapidly growing popula-tions is putting increasing pressure on island governments to expand existingagricultural systems or increase productivity of existing plots through in-creased use of fertilizers and other intensification measures known to have adeleterious effect on freshwater and marine water quality.

New CaledoniaMore than 12 percent of New Caledonia’s total land area (1.858 millionhectares) has been converted for agricultural use. About 13,000 hectares areused for the cultivation of arable and permanent crops such as maize, co-conut, and coffee, while the remainder (216,000 hectares) are used for perma-nent pasture. The latter are reserved primarily for the rearing of beef cattleand sheep, although deer farming operations have taken root in recent yearsand are providing growing volumes of venison for export to Europe. Aqua-culture is an expanding presence as well, especially prawn farming (UN Foodand Agriculture Organization, 2002).

VanuatuThe eighty-two islands that compose Vanuatu have a total land area of 1.219million hectares, with the large islands of Espiritu Santo and Malekule ac-counting for about half of the total. Mountainous terrain constrains farmingthrough most of the country, but coastal strips are widely cultivated. Theseareas provide most of the 162,000 hectares of Vanuatu’s land that is used foragriculture, with 42,000 hectares used for permanent pasture and 120,000hectares devoted to the production of arable and permanent crops (ibid.).About 65 percent of Vanuatu’s population relies on subsistence agriculture forits livelihood.

The most important cash crops include banana, cocoa, coconut, coffee, andmaize. Coconut and cocoa bean are grown in plantations, though their signif-icance has declined in the last decade as the contribution of smallholders hasincreased. Vanuatu has an active research program on coconut biotechnologywith a focus on the production of high-yielding varieties. The dominant sub-sistence crops are yam and taro. In terms of livestock production, beef cattlepredominate, and overgrazing has become a serious problem in some areas.Overall, Vanuatu exports more agricultural commodities than it imports, andislanders enjoy a high level of food security.


A Comprehensive Reform Program (CRP) has recently been established bythe Vanuatu government. This initiative aims to promote private-sector in-volvement in economic activities, of which agriculture is of primary impor-tance, and reduce that of the public sector. This will include new legislationfocused on tax changes, the privatization of state-owned enterprises, and theencouragement of foreign investment. The objective is to increase efficiency,growth, and export earnings, as well as to encourage diversification. However,the CRP may do little to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture,which, as currently practiced, is a chief cause of deforestation and soil erosion(Asian Development Bank, 2001).

The Solomon IslandsAlthough agriculture is a mainstay of the economy of the Solomon Islands,permanent agriculture occupies only about 100,000 hectares (40,000 hectaresof pasture and 60,000 hectares of cropland) of the state’s total land area of2.89 million hectares. But shifting agriculture is widely practiced on theSolomon Islands.

The cash crops of coconut, oil palm, and cocoa beans are particularly im-portant in terms of overall land use. Oil palm production is a relatively recentinnovation following the success of experimental oil-palm plots on theGuadalcanal plain of the Island of Honiara in the late 1960s. By 2000 some9,000 hectares were devoted to oil palm production, which has reached 30,000tons annually. Root crops such as sweet potatoes, yam, and taro that are culti-vated in shifting agricultural systems are the most important subsistent crops,while rice is the main cereal produced. In 2000 livestock production ac-counted for 11,000 head of cattle and 64,000 pigs; the former are raised onpermanent pasture, while the latter are reared in smallholder enterprises thatalso include crop production (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002).

FijiFiji’s 300 islands have a total land area of 1.827 million hectares, of which460,000 hectares are used for agriculture (175,000 hectares of permanent pas-ture and 285,000 hectares of cropland). The major cash crops are sugar caneand coconuts, while minor cash crops include ginger, kava, cocoa beans,pineapple, and squash. All of these commodities are exported and are themain source of Fiji’s income. Fiji’s pasturelands support 335,000 head of cattleand 7,000 sheep, and beef and veal also rank as important exports (ibid.).

Subsistence crops include taro, sweet potato, yam, banana, and rice, butsugarcane ranks as the most commercially important crop produced in Fiji’s

Agriculture 113

A man harvests sugar cane in Fiji. JACK FIELDS/CORBIS

fields. It directly employs one out of four members of the country’s labor forcefor production and accounts for 40 percent of the value of its commercial agri-culture (Bank of Hawaii, 1996). However, the government is encouragingagricultural diversification in order to protect Fiji from global fluctuations insugar production and prices. In the wake of the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburg in 2002, the FAO has been asked to assist theFiji government in its agricultural program, and especially in efforts to in-crease rice production and expand its dairy industry.

Fiji is one of the few centers of biotechnological research in the Pacific Islands.A program to collect and disseminate tissue of disease- and pest-resistant vari-eties of roots and tubers common to the Pacific Islands was established in the1980s by the South Pacific Commission (SPC). There is also a Sugarcane Re-search Centre at Lautoka and an ongoing program to produce disease-free kavaby the SPC’s Plant Protection Service in Suva (Pacific Magazine and IslandsBusiness, 2002).

MicronesiaOf the 2,000 islands that characterize Micronesia, the largest groups are theFederated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. The latter nation re-lies heavily on copra production, though taro, breadfruit, cocoa, tomato, andmelon are also produced in significant volumes. Most agricultural productionin the Marshall Islands is on a subsistent basis, and copra and coconut oil arethe major agricultural exports. In fact, 7,000 of the island state’s 18,000-hectares are given over to coconut production (UN Food and AgricultureOrganization, 2002). In contrast, the Federated States of Micronesia have amore diversified agricultural base; 46,000 hectares of a total land area of70,000 hectares are used for agriculture, with 36,000 hectares of arable andpermanent croplands and 10,000 hectares of permanent pasture. Coconut isthe dominant crop in terms of area and production, but the main exports arebanana, betel nuts, black pepper, and citrus fruits, which are imported toGuam and the Marshall Islands. There are several staple crops, includingsweet potatoes and rice. Agriculture ranks as the main cause of deforestationin both the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, and it is achief cause of soil erosion (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Other island groups in Micronesia include Palau, where a subsistence-based agriculture sector contributes 12 percent of the island nation’s gross do-mestic product. Farming operations also occupy nearly half of the island’sland mass of 46,000 hectares; 12,000 hectares are used for arable and per-manent crops and 8,000 hectares are permanent pasture (UN Food and

Agriculture 115

Agriculture Organization, 2002). Palau’s agricultural holdings, which producecoconut, tapioca, taro, and a variety of tropical fruits, have suffered extensivedamage at the hands of invasive plant and insect species. For example, twospecies of fruit flies introduced to Palau in the mid-1990s have decimatedmountain apple and carambola fruit crops and have diminished guava andbanana productivity; export of these fruits has been banned (Office of Envi-ronmental Response and Coordination, 2002).

PolynesiaThe largest island groups of Polynesia are the Cook Islands and FrenchPolynesia. Both island states maintain significant subsistence and commercialagriculture sectors. In the Cook Islands, approximately one-third of the landarea of 23,000 hectares is used for arable and permanent crops; permanentpasturelands are nonexistent (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002).Approximately 70 percent of households rely on agriculture for their liveli-hood, but the sector has actually declined slightly in significance in recentyears as a result of increased economic activity in the finance, business, andtourism sectors (Cook Islands Ministry of Agriculture, 2002). The commer-cial sector is focused on exports of tropical fruits such as papaya and mango,while coconuts and sweet potatoes are other important crops. The CookIslands have also developed a range of niche-market crops for export, includ-ing chili, coffee, vanilla, and the nono, a traditional Maori medicine fruit.

The importance of agriculture to the economy of the Cook Islands is re-flected in the many research programs that are underway at the TotokoituAgricultural Research Station, a joint venture between the Cook Islands andNew Zealand that is exploring production possibilities of a wide assortmentof fruit, vegetable, nut, and root crops. Research also is ongoing on a range ofpest and disease eradication initiatives.

In French Polynesia, approximately 10 percent of the 400,000 hectares ofland area distributed among its 130 islands is used for agriculture, with agricul-tural land divided roughly evenly between permanent pastures and croplands(UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002). Economically, agriculture isnot as important as the growing tourism industry or the sale of Tahitianpearls, but increases in native populations and tourist arrivals have combinedto place heavy pressure on intensification and expansion of existing agricul-tural operations. Already, agriculture is primarily responsible for the loss oflowland and coastal forests, which have been cleared for coconut groves andother forms of cultivation.

Other islands in Polynesia include the Wallis and Futuna group and Pit-cairn, where subsistence-based agriculture is a dominant element of the so-


cioeconomic fabric. In the Wallis and Futuna group, one-quarter of the totalland area of 20,000 hectares has been converted for arable and permanentcrops. There is no permanent pasture, but introduced goats have inflictedconsiderable damage to the flora of these small islands and shifting cultiva-tion is common, including the use of fire for initial vegetation clearance.Subsistence agriculture on the small island of Pitcairn involves the productionof yams, beans, citrus, banana, watermelon, sugar cane, and coconut, all ofwhich have contributed to forest loss.

TongaAgriculture is well-developed and extensive in Tonga. Of Tonga’s land area of75,000 hectares, 52,000 are given over to agriculture, with cropland account-ing for nearly all of this total (ibid.). Farming has been a longtime mainstay ofthe economy, but it has undergone substantial change in the last few decades.Whereas coconuts and bananas were once the premier crops, the pumpkinhas now emerged as Tonga’s most important and profitable agricultural prod-uct. In fact, exports of pumpkin crops, primarily to Japan and New Zealand,provide more than half of the kingdom’s total export earnings. Production issmallholder-based, with cooperatives facilitating the export trade, but it is alsoheavily reliant on artificial fertilizers and pesticides, which have given rise toenvironmental problems such as the eutrophication of aquatic environments.In addition to the aforementioned products, high-value specialty crops in-clude kava and vanilla. Indeed, these crops dominate agriculture on the islandof Vava’u, Tonga’s second-largest island. In terms of animal production, cattleand pigs are most important.

SamoaAlmost half of Samoa’s total land area of 284,000 hectares is used for the pro-duction of arable and permanent crops. Coconut is by far the most importantcommercial crop, while the leading subsistence crop is taro. Tropical fruitsthat are actively cultivated include papaya, pineapple, and mango, but nonerival banana in terms of economic importance. As with so many other Pacificstates, Samoan communities rely heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods;fully 65 percent of Samoan households support themselves directly or indi-rectly in agriculture and related industries. Agriculture operations are basedin the coastal plains, which have suffered extensive forest loss as a result(ibid.). This deforestation and subsequent farming activity have dramaticallyincreased sedimentation of coastal reefs, which in turn has produced down-turns in the populations of important near-shore fish stocks (UN Environ-ment Programme, 1999).

Agriculture 117

Sources:Allen, B. J., R. M. Bourke, and L. Hanson. 2001. “Dimensions of PNG Village Agricul-

ture.” In Food Security for Papua New Guinea. Edited by R. M. Bourke, M. G.Allen, and J. G. Salisbury. Canberra: ACIAR.

Asian Development Bank. 2001. Vanuatu: Agriculture and Fisheries Sector Review2000. Manila: ADB. Available at www.adb.org.

Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2000. AgriculturalBiotechnology: What Is happening in Australia in 2000. Available at www.affa.gov.au (accessed November 18, 2002).


———. 2001. Australia’s Native Vegetation. Canberra: National Land and Water Re-sources Audit.


Bank of Hawaii. 1996. “Fiji Economic Report.” Available at www.boh.com (accessedNovember 22, 2002).

Barr, N. F., and J. W. Cary. 1992. Greening a Brown Land: The Australian Search forSustainable Land Use. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2000. Our Vital Resources—National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality in Australia. Canberra: Environment Australia.Available at http://www.napswq.gov.au/publications/vital_resources.html(accessed August 2002).

Cook Islands Ministry of Agriculture. Importance of Agricultural Research. Available atwww.cook-islands.gov.ck (accessed December 3, 2002).

DaSilva, E. J., and M. Taylor. 1998. “Island Communities and Biotechnology.” Elec-tronic Journal of Biotechnology 1.

Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific. 1995. Review of the Envi-ronment and Development Trends in the South Pacific. Port Vila, Vanuatu:ESCAP.

Hanson, L. W., et al. 2001. Mapping Land Resource Potential and Agricultural Pressurein Papua New Guinea. Technical Report from ACIAR Project ASEM 1996/044.Canberra: Australian National University.

Journeaux, P. 1996. “Trends in New Zealand Agriculture.” New Zealand Journal ofGeography (October).

Lovett, John, and John Duggin. 1992. “Agricultural Side-Effects.” In The UniqueContinent. Edited by Jeremy Smith. St. Lucia, Queensland: University ofQueensland Press.

Maika, C. B. 2001. “The Role of Livestock in Food Security for PNG.” In R. M. Bourke,M. G. Allen, and J. G. Salisbury, eds. Food Security for Papua New Guinea.Canberra: ACIAR.


Mannion, A.M. 1997. Global Environmental Change: A Natural and Cultural Environ-mental History. 2d ed. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

———. 2002. Dynamic World: Land-cover and Land-use Change. London: Arnold.


New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Sectors/Animals. Available atwww.maf.govt.nz (accessed November 26, 2002).

———. Sectors/Horticulture. Available at www.maf.govt.nz (accessed November 26,2002).

Nunn, P. 1994. Oceanic Islands. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Office of Environmental Response and Coordination (Republic of Palau). 2002.National Report to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.Palau: Office of Environmental Response and Coordination.

Paarlberg, Roger. 2000. “Promise or Peril? Genetically Modified Crops in DevelopingCountries.” Environment (January/February).

Pacific Magazine and Islands Business. 2001. The Answer to Pitcairn’s Woes? Availableat www.pacificislands.cc, June 2001 (accessed December 1, 2002).

———. 2002. Agriculture: SPC Plant Protection Brings in Help to Tackle Kava Dieback.September. Available at www.pacificislands.cc (accessed November 28, 2002).

Pinstrup-Anderson, Per, and Ebbe Schioler. 2001. Seeds of Contention: World Hunger andthe Global Controversy over GM (Genetically Modified) Crops. Washington, DC:Johns Hopkins University Press/International Food Policy Research Institute.

Pyne, Steven J. 1998. “Forged in Fire: History, Land, and Anthropogenic Fire.” InAdvances in Historical Ecology. Edited by W. Balée. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Schuhbeck, A., and J. Bokosou. 2001.“The Potential of Using Homemade Plant-derivedPesticides to Increase Food Crop Production and Local Food Security.” InFood Security for Papua New Guinea. Edited by R. M. Bourke, M. G. Allen, andJ. G. Salisbury. Canberra: ACIAR.

Singh, D., P. Kaushal, and M. Singh. 2001.“Impacts of Biotechnology on Food Securityand Food Quality.” In Food Security for Papua New Guinea. Edited by R. M.Bourke, M. G. Allen, and J. G. Salisbury. Canberra: ACIAR.

Solomon Islands Economic Report. III. Economy by Sectors and Major Industries.Available at www.boh.com (accessed November 28, 2002).

Trade Partners UK. Agriculture, Horticulture and Fisheries Market in New Zealand.Available at www.tradepartners.gov.uk (accessed November 15, 2002).

Tupou, S. Cash Cropping and Squash Pumpkins in Tonga. Available at http://abc.net.au(accessed December 3, 2002).

UN Environment Programme. Pacific Islands Environmental Outlook. Available atwww.unep.org, 1999 (accessed December 4, 2002).

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 2000. State of the World Fisheries andAquaculture 2000. Rome: FAO.

Agriculture 119

———. 2001. The State of Food and Agriculture 2001. Rome: FAO.

———. 2001. State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2001. Rome: FAO.

———. Agricultural statistics (FAOSTAT). Available at www.fao.org (accessed Nov-ember 5, 2002).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture Guam. Available at www.nass.usda.gov (accessed December 3, 2002).

Willis, R. 2001. “Farming.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 42.

Wood, Stanley, Kate Sebastian, and Sara J. Scherr. 2000. PAGE (Pilot Analysis of GlobalEcosystems): Agroecosystems; a Joint Study by the International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI) and World Resources Institute (WRI). Washington,DC: IFPRI, WRI.


6

Freshwater—A N G E L A C A S S E R

Oceania is a region that contains great extremes and variability in climate,rainfall, and freshwater availability. Owing to low population densities

throughout many parts of the region, this variability does not pose a signifi-cant problem in terms of per capita water availability, although seasonaldroughts have created shortages. Regionally, freshwater overabstraction andenvironmental degradation associated with terrestrial freshwater use poses thegreatest environmental risk in Australia, which is the largest, most heavilypopulated, most economically powerful, and most water-stressed country inthe region. But other Pacific Island countries are grappling with troublingtrends regarding their freshwater resources as well, and commitment to im-proved freshwater management is a necessity for the region’s future prosperity.

Australia’s Freshwater ResourcesWater scarcity is a fact of life in many parts of Australia, and numerous re-gions are experiencing significant social, economic, and ecological problemsassociated with overabstraction and degradation of freshwater resources.Australia has the most variable precipitation and runoff distribution in theworld, ranging from parched desert interior sections that receive minimalrainfall to northeast Queensland and the west-facing slopes of Tasmania andthe Australian Alps, all of which receive more than 4,000 mm (157 inches) an-nually (Smith, 1998). In addition, seasonal variability in rainfall is consider-able, providing Australians with an intrinsic understanding that their countryis one “of droughts and flooding rains” (McKellar, 1911). This variability hasbeen an important factor in maintaining some of Australia’s unique and aquaticecosystems of amazing biodiversity, such as floodplain wetlands and bill-abongs (oxbow lakes).

By world standards, Australia’s surface runoff and renewable groundwaterresources are notably low, representing just over 10 percent of Australia’s total

121

rainfall (Smith, 1998). This amount is depleted further when one considersthat, of Australia’s total surface runoff, only 32 percent can be feasibly divertedfor human use (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). Thisis primarily because the mean annual runoff is highest in the tropical north-ern areas of Australia, a lightly populated region of pronounced seasonal pre-cipitation disparities where 65 percent of all runoff occurs. Variability ofsupply is a main reason why this water can not be utilized more efficiently inAustralia; the ability to store water in tropical areas is limited, as most runoffoccurs after very large rainfall events that require uneconomically large reser-voirs to capture water.

In part, the variability experienced in Australia can be attributed to the ElNiño–Southern Oscillation weather phenomenon, which brings with it cloud-less skies over the parched outback. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation occurswhen the eastern Pacific Ocean currents alter and cold water upwelling alongthe Peruvian coastline in South America ceases (Glantz, 1996). In South Amer-ica, El Niño is associated with heavy rains and flooding, and the reverse is trueon the other side of the Pacific in Australia, where the El Niño event is associ-ated with drought.

The science of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation phenomena is not com-pletely understood, and predicting its return is an inexact pursuit, but it hasshown that it can have dire consequences for Australian agriculture and watersupplies. In the early twenty-first century, for example, Australia was grippedby a fierce drought blamed on El Niño. The period from April to October 2002was cited as the driest seven-month period in the country’s history, and ana-lysts with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology state that the drought, whichhas descended on nearly all regions, could rank as the worst and most destruc-tive in Australian history by the time it ends. The government forecasterABARE has already predicted that the drought will wipe A$5.4 billion fromthe nation’s economy in 2002/2003 (ABARE, 2002), and major cities such asSydney and Melbourne have been forced to initiate water-use restrictions.Other cities, such as the Australian capital of Canberra, have been threatenedby major bush fires roaring through the tinder-dry backcountry.

Some observers believe that global climate change is another factor at workin Australia’s 2002 drought. In early 2003, for example, the World Wide Fundfor Nature Australia released a study that cited human-induced global warm-ing as a contributor to the nation’s water woes. The study, which was endorsedby the government-funded Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization (CSIRO), concluded that greenhouse gases and inap-propriate crop selection were exacerbating the country’s natural vulnerabilityto drought. It claimed that higher temperatures attributable to global warm-


ing were causing marked increases in evaporation rates from Australian soil,waterways, and vegetation (World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, 2003).

Water Use in AustraliaApproximately 75 percent of all freshwater consumed in Australia is used inirrigation, which, more than any other single factor, has pushed the country’sconsumption levels to all-time highs. Indeed, from 1985 to 1996–1997, Aus-tralia increased its water use by 65 percent, with surface water accounting for79 percent of all water extracted and groundwater accounting for the remain-ing 21 percent (Australian National Land and Water Resources Audit, Aus-tralian Water Resources Assessment, 2001).

Unfortunately, the geographical distribution of agricultural development inAustralia does not reflect the limited availability of freshwater; the nation’smajor agricultural regions are located within the 80 percent of Australia’s landthat has an average rainfall of less than 600 mm (24 inches) per year. As a result,irrigation has become the cornerstone of the agricultural economy. Most ofthis irrigation is concentrated in “Australia’s food bowl,” the Murray-DarlingBasin, which in 1997 accounted for 71 percent (1.472 million hectares) of thetotal area irrigated in Australia. In addition, the rate of growth in water use forirrigation has surged in some areas of Australia over the past few decades. NewSouth Wales and Queensland, which have large areas within the Murray-Darling Basin, have almost doubled their areas of irrigated land over the lasttwenty years (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

These steadily growing rates of extraction from Australian rivers andstreams for agriculture and other purposes have had a considerable impacton aquatic ecosystems. More than one-quarter of Australia’s river systems areeither close to or are already oversubscribed (Australian National Land andWater Resources Audit, Australian Water Resources Assessment, 2001). More-over, nearly 70 percent of the total volume of water extracted from surfacewaters in Australia is taken from these stressed river systems (Australian Stateof the Environment Committee, 2001).

These heavy rates of withdrawal from river systems, combined with modi-fications for water storage, flood alleviation, hydroelectric power, water trans-port, and other purposes, have appreciably altered the fundamental characterof many Australian rivers. A 2002 government survey of Australia’s freshwaterresources determined that over 85 percent of the country’s rivers have been“significantly modified” in terms of their environmental features. New SouthWales, South Australia, and Western Australia have the greatest amounts ofmodified river length (97 percent, 96 percent, and 93 percent, respectively).Further, over 80 percent of the country’s total river length was affected by

Freshwater 123

catchment disturbance, with land uses affecting delivery of sediment, nutri-ents, and water into systems, and more than 50 percent of the country’s riverlength featured modified habitat (mainly linked to changes in sediment loadsthat can alter channel morphology). Not surprisingly, this study also reportedwidespread degradation of aquatic ecosystems associated with these varioustypes of modification and development (Australian National Land and WaterResources Audit, Australian Water Resources Assessment, 2001).

Australia’s dams have come under particular scrutiny for their environ-mental impact. Almost all of Australia’s major rivers are now dammed andtheir flows regulated. These projects have created reservoirs that have pro-vided highly valued water security for agricultural and household users. Inaddition, some dams have a significant hydroelectricity generation function,such as the Snowy River Hydroelectric Scheme. But many large dams inAustralia have been faulted for their adverse consequences, such as reducedfishery health, flooding of upstream habitat, and alteration of downstreamaquatic habitat. In addition, Australia’s agricultural regions are riddled withsmall to medium on-farm dams, which until recently have not been rigor-ously regulated. These smaller farm dams are typically located in areas thatcapture rainfall and runoff, thus preventing normal replenishment of nearbystreams. Alone, they are minor obstructions to runoff, but cumulatively theycan demonstrate considerable impact on river flow and volume.


Gallons20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Elec.

& gasWater supply Household

Sector

Figure 6.1 Net Water Consumption by Sector

SOURCE: ABS data used with permission from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://abs.gov.au.Water Account for Autralia 1993–1994 to 1996–1997 (Cat. No. 4610.0, p. 13)

Home to Australia’s largest river system,

the Murray-Darling Basin is also the

country’s most productive agricultural

region. It covers 14 percent of Australia’s

total land mass (1,058,590 square

kilometers [408,722 square miles]),

straddles five states and territories, and

supports more than 2 million people

and a wide array of fish, reptiles, birds,

mammals, and plants. But average

rainfall in this region is relatively low,

necessitating high rates of water

extraction from rivers and groundwater

sources for irrigation. As a result, the

Murray-Darling Basin has become one

of the most water stressed regions of

Australia (National Land and Water

Resources Audit, 2001;World Wide Fund

for Nature Australia, 2001).

Water extraction from the Murray-

Darling system dates back to the 1870s,

increasing sharply in the 1950s and

1960s. From 1944 to 1994, extraction

rates across the basin tripled (Murray-

Darling Basin Commission, 2000).The

greatest increases in rates of extraction

have been in the northern regions of

the basin, where water-intensive crops

such as cotton and other large-scale

enterprises (high-value horticulture,

viticulture, rice, and vegetables) have

been established.The cumulative

impact of these enterprises has been

significant. It is estimated that present

median annual flow within the basin is

only 27 percent of predevelopment

flow (ibid.).

During the 1990s it was

determined that the increase in water-

extraction rates for irrigation in the

basin was not sustainable, especially

since the region was also experiencing

a sharp increase in salinity-induced

land degradation, mainly in the lower

catchment area. In addition to these

problems, wetlands (including several

of international importance) and red-

gum forests were also experiencing

increased stress from altered flood

regimes (mainly reduced frequency

and intensity), and native fish species

were also in severe decline (ibid.).

Other threats to the health and

integrity of the watershed were

reported as well. Increases in nutrients

from agricultural runoff and increased

sediment loading from deforestation

contributed significantly to a rise in

algal blooms throughout the basin,

resulting in fish kills and deoxygenation

of water.The direst of these events

occurred in 1991, when a toxic blue-

green (cyanobacteria) algae bloom

afflicted a 1,000-kilometer (620-mile)

stretch of the Darling River.

The degradation of the Murray-

Darling system has also heightened the

impact of introduced species such as

European carp. Indeed, carp numbers

have exploded in many of Australia’s

rivers, where long sections of still water

and a dearth of predators have created

ideal conditions for population growth;

a study conducted in 1992 reported that

overall, 90 percent of the fish samples

taken from the Darling River system

were carp (Harris, 1992).The carp have

had a pronounced impact on riverine

environments in the Murray-Darling

basin and other regions. Feeding in

Water Conservation in the Murray-Darling Basin

(continues)

direct competition with native fish

species, they have disrupted the

ecological balance in many waterways.

Moreover, the feeding habits of carp

dislodge vegetation, adding to the

suspended-sediment load of already

naturally turbid waters (Smith, 1998).

Australian governments have

responded to this clear need for action.

Since 1985, the Murray-Darling

Ministerial Council has operated to

facilitate interstate cooperation among

Queensland, New South Wales,

Australian Capital Territory,Victoria, and

South Australia to ensure that a river

basin approach to management is

encouraged.The boldest measure taken

by the Council was the 1995 imposition

of “The Cap,”a commonwealth and

state/territory agreement to limit water

extraction from the basin.The Cap is

intended to hold the level of water

extraction to that of 1993/1994, putting

an end to steadily rising rates of

consumption. Since this mechanism

was imposed, there has been an

increase in water trading within the

Murray-Darling basin. It is hoped that

trading will encourage a shift from “low-

return uses”(such as irrigation of water-

intensive crops) to “high-return uses”

and prompt greater efficiencies in water

usage (Murray-Darling Basin

Commission, 2002).

But although the Cap has

succeeded in slowing the increase in

water extraction in the basin, not all

parties have met their water

conservation commitments.

Queensland, for example, has not

agreed to recommended Cap levels,

and withdrawals from New South

Wales’s Barwon River have exceeded

Cap limits. Conservationists also note

that the Cap alone is not capable of

restoring already damaged riverine

environments.They have called for new

investments in aquatic habitat

restoration programs and new

restrictions on environmentally

destructive forms of land-use

(Australian State of the Environment

Committee, 2001).

Sources:Australian National Land and Water

Resources Audit. 2001. Australian

Catchment, River and Estuary

Assessment 2002. 2 vols. Canberra:

National Land and Water Resources

Audit.

Australian State of the Environment

Committee. 2001. Australia State of the

Environment Report 2001. Canberra:

Commonwealth of Australia.

Harris, J. 1992. Fish Migration in the

Darling River. Sydney: New South

Wales Fisheries.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission. 2000.

Review of the Operation of the Cap:

Overview Report of the Murray Darling

Basin Commission. Canberra: MDBC.

———. 2002. Water Audit Monitoring

Report 2000/01: Report of the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission on the Cap

on Diversions. Canberra: MDBC.

Smith, D. I. 1998. Water in Australia:

Resources and Management.


World Wide Fund for Nature Australia.

2001. Greening the 2001 Agenda:

Priority Environment Initiatives for

Commonwealth Government

2002–2005. Sydney:WWF Australia.

Reductions in river flow in Australia have had major consequences for riverecology, and there needs to be greater recognition that the ecological health ofriver basins is important to livelihoods and to the protection of the conti-nent’s unique biodiversity. By altering natural patterns of high and low riverflows, unsustainable water extraction for human use reduces the amount ofwater available for dependent animals, plants, and habitat. For example, wet-land modifications over the last century have been severe, with many wetlandssuffering substantial reductions in area because of changes in flow regimesand inundation areas and reclamation (Kingsford, 2000; Australian State ofthe Environment Committee, 2001).

Australia’s political system, which gives states and territories much of the re-sponsibility for oversight and management of freshwater and other naturalresources contained within their borders, complicates efforts to address growingpressures on the continent’s rivers, wetlands, and aquifers.“Each state and terri-tory has different approaches to management, to defining environmental needs,and on deciding what is the acceptable health of an aquatic system,” acknowl-edged the authors of one recent environment study.“This is further complicatedwhen a river, wetland or groundwater resource crosses state and territoryboundaries. Cross border natural resource management authorities are strivingto achieve more integrated processes and outcomes in the management of theirrespective inland waters and catchments. However, from some issues state orterritory interests have overridden what is environmentally sustainable for thewhole catchment” (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

In recent years, however, there has been a greater effort to incorporate envi-ronmental considerations into the management of rivers and other freshwaterresources. By mid-2000, 13 percent of Australian river systems had operationalenvironmental flow allocations, and state and commonwealth governmentshave pledged their commitment to restoring more natural environmentalflows to many of Australia’s degraded rivers, including the Snowy River water-shed (Australian National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian WaterResources Assessment, 2001). In addition, so-called “whole-of-catchment”management schemes have been successfully launched in places like Aus-tralia’s Lake Eyre Basin. Finally, state and federal agencies are exploring a vari-ety of reforms meant to reduce water consumption, including charging for thefull cost of supplying water, reallocation of water to highest value crops, andreduced reliance on water-intensive crops (Australian State of the Environ-ment Committee, 2001).

Pollution of Australia’s Freshwater ResourcesNational inventories on pollution of Australia’s freshwater resources are in-complete, apart from point-source pollution in known contaminated areas

Freshwater 127

such as derelict mines. It is also very difficult to discuss water quality in termsof Australian rivers because under natural conditions they tend to have muchhigher loads of suspended particles than other regions, and therefore, evenunder natural conditions, many Australian rivers exceed the recommendedsuspended sediment limits for drinking water (Smith, 1998). But knownpollutant sources of significance include pesticides and fertilizers used in agri-culture; oil and heavy metals; and waste from human settlements and live-stock operations.

In some regions, contamination has reached the point that aquatic ecosys-tems and drinking water safety have been endangered. One increasingly noto-rious manifestation of degraded waterways is toxic algal blooms (such asblue-green algae, or cyanobacteria), which now appear with regularitythroughout Australia. For example, in 1991 the Barwon and Darling rivers inNew South Wales were beleaguered by a toxic algal bloom that stretched for1,000 kilometers (620 miles). Elsewhere in New South Wales, blue-green algalblooms have erupted in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River and in many inlandlakes and reservoirs. And in Western Australia, rivers such as the Blackwood,Vasse, Serpentine, and Swan-Canning have all been regularly damaged byblue-green algal blooms since 1996. As the Australian government now ac-knowledges, nutrient levels are now high enough to support algal blooms inmost river systems of the economically vital Murray-Darling Basin and nu-merous coastal river systems in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, andWestern Australia (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Cyanobacteria occur naturally throughout Australia, but they pose signifi-cant health and environmental problems when there are population explo-sions, most of which are attributable to anthropogenic influences. Australia’snaturally low-gradient, low-flow rivers have had their flows further depletedthrough overextraction. This has created an ideal incubator for blue-greenalgal blooms, which occur most frequently in still waters. Another factor hasbeen the introduction of plant nutrients, nitrogen, and phosphorus fromfarming, inadequate sewage treatment, and other human sources. These algalblooms can result in eutrophication, a condition in which excess organic nu-trients from fertilizers and waste deplete a body of water’s supply of oxygen,which in turn can devastate resident aquatic life.

Most pollutants entering Australia’s inland waters are from non–pointsources such as pesticides used in agriculture, particularly cotton, rice, sugarcane, and horticultural crops. Since 1990, at least twenty fish kills in NewSouth Wales have been linked to pesticides, and analysts are concerned thatpesticide use is likely to increase at least over the short term. Excessive sedi-mentation stemming from timber operations, including the construction of


3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Ton

s

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

Figure 6.2 Tons of Nitrogen Discharged Annually in Australia


700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

Ton

s

Figure 6.3 Tons of Phosphorous Discharged by Australia’s Inland SewageTreatment Plants Each Year


logging roads, has also been faulted for causing serious erosion problems thathave compromised water quality and ecosystem integrity in some rivers andstreams. In addition, acidification attributed to discharges from mining sites,agricultural activities, and disturbance of soils with high acid content have cre-ated high levels of water acidity in some inland waters of Victoria and NewSouth Wales. Other pollutants, such as oil and heavy metals from industrial op-erations, mining, and urban areas, have caused localized damage, but authori-ties in some states and territories have made significant strides in imposingmore stringent pollution parameters for some industries and in implementingstormwater management plans for catchments (watersheds) with large urbanpopulations (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

Salinity—A Major Challenge for Australia’s Environmental FutureSalinity of dryland areas and freshwater resources represents possibly themost significant, damaging, and urgent environmental dilemma facingAustralia today. Freshwater systems in Australia threatened by rising salinitylevels include the Murray-Darling Basin and major catchments in WesternAustralia and South Australia. Australia has naturally saline groundwater inmany areas, reminiscent of ancient marine environments. Poor environmen-tal management practices, particularly relating to irrigation and inappropri-ate clearing of vegetation, have contributed to the widespread rise of thissaline groundwater to the surface; left unchecked these practices can eventu-ally render large areas of land unusable.

Although salinity does arise naturally, salinity mobilized through anthro-pogenic activities exhibits the most damaging and widespread damage.Broadly, these can be characterized as “irrigation” and “dryland” salinities.Irrigation salinity occurs when the natural level of the groundwater table israised by irrigation. Saline groundwater is able to reach the surface followingthis artificial recharge, particularly in low-lying areas and regions with shal-low groundwater tables. Once the salt has been mobilized to the surface, theproductive capacity of the land is irreversibly damaged.

Dryland salinity occurs as a result of clearing native vegetation for pastureor shallow-rooted crops and pastures. Shallow-rooted plants can only utilizewater in the upper part of the soil profile, with the rest passing through torecharge groundwater. These shallow-rooted crops and pastures also tend toevapotranspire less than larger native vegetative cover. This combination offactors produces greater levels of water infiltration that can sometimes bringsaline groundwater tables to the surface, putting an end to the land’s agricul-tural productivity (Smith, 1998).


Indications of excess salinity are already evident in many areas of Australia.An estimated 5 million hectares of land have already been affected by salinity,and some forecasts have stated that up to 17 million hectares could be affectedby 2050. Much of the presently salt-affected or potentially salt-affected areasare in the most agriculturally productive regions of Australia. The area dam-aged by salinity to date represents about 4.5 percent of present cultivated land,and estimated current costs include $130 million annually in lost agriculturalproduction; $100 million annually in damage to infrastructure, and at least$40 million in loss of environmental assets (Land and Water Resources Re-search and Development Corporation, 1998; Australian National Land andWater Resources Audit, Australian Water Resources Assessment, 2001).

Inland lakes and rivers have been harmed by salinity as well. Across thecontinent, eighty ecologically significant wetlands have already been affectedby salinity, and the number of salinity-degraded wetlands is expected to rise inthe coming years. Managers of river systems in western Victoria and south-west Western Australia are also grappling with rising salinity levels, as aremany of the cities and towns of South Australia and New South Wales, wheredrinking water supplies are now in jeopardy because of salinization. InAdelaide, for instance, scientists contend that drinking water could exceedsafety guidelines for salinity 40 percent of the year by 2020 if rising salinity inthe Murray River is not curbed. Given the ecological importance of inlandwaters as habitat and sources of food and water, it is clear that rising salinity

Freshwater 131

Trees killed and soil scalded by dryland salinity, NSW. IAN PATERSON/PHOTOLIBRARY/PICTUREQUEST

levels must be addressed in a decisive manner to ensure that Australia’s aquaticand terrestrial biodiversity is protected.

Australia’s Dwindling Groundwater ResourcesFreshwater stresses are not confined only to surface waters in Australia.Groundwater use increased by 90 percent across Australia between 1985 and1996/1997. More than half (51 percent) of the freshwater extracted fromAustralia’s aquifers is utilized for crop irrigation, while the remaining 49 percentis divided between urban/industrial use (32 percent) and rural use and livestockcare (17 percent) (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

The end use of groundwater depends on regional priorities and economicorientations. In eastern and southern Australia, more than 60 percent ofgroundwater withdrawals are made for irrigation, while Western Australia de-votes 72 percent of its groundwater extractions to household use, factory oper-ations, and other urban and industrial purposes (Perth’s heavy reliance ongroundwater resources for its freshwater needs is a major factor in this highpercentage). All told, an estimated 4 million people in Australia depend par-tially or totally on groundwater for their domestic water supply (ibid.). In manylocales, however, authorities are concerned that groundwater resources arebeing drained at a rate far beyond the level of natural recharge. The chief cul-prits in this “drawing down” of water tables are urban centers and irrigation-dependent agricultural operations. Specific regions at risk of exhausting theiraquifers at present rates of consumption include aquifers along the nation’seastern coast, aquifers in the Murray-Darling and Perth basins, and the GreatArtesian Basin, one of the largest and most economically important ground-water basins in the world.

The Great Artesian Basin is located in the arid Central-Eastern region ofAustralia. Covering an area of 1,711,000 square kilometers (661,000 squaremiles), with an estimated 64,900 cubic kilometers of stored water, the GreatArtesian Basin underlies approximately one-fifth of Australia’s total land area.It extends beneath the arid and semiarid regions of Queensland, New SouthWales, South Australia, and the Northern Territory, extending as far south asLake Eyre depression, the terminus of the overlying surface drainage basin. Atits deepest, the Great Artesian Basin reaches a maximum depth of 3,000 me-ters (9,800 feet). This water is an ancient resource, with formation of somesouthwestern portions of the basin dating back an estimated 2 million years(Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2002).

In the most arid areas of the Great Artesian Basin, the overlying surface hy-drology consists of ephemeral rivers and creeks that flow only seasonally orduring periods of significant precipitation. Yet in the late nineteenth century,European settlers utilized this area for grazing cattle and sheep by tapping into


the massive Great Artesian Basin aquifer. The Great Artesian Basin, as itsname suggests, consists of artesian water—groundwater under pressure.Because of this pressure, the water will flow freely without needing to be man-ually pumped once bores are drilled.

Over time, much of the land area covering the basin became enormouslyproductive farmland. But many users have been negligent in their stewardshipof the resource. For example, many of the bores used to tap into the GreatArtesian Basin remained uncapped, and some are still uncapped, allowing

Freshwater 133

Excess salinity is a major problem in many regions of Australia. IAN PATERSON/PHOTOLIBRARY/

PICTUREQUEST

water from the subterranean depths to gush wastefully out over the arid land-scape. In addition, expanding populations and agricultural development haveprompted the drilling of myriad new bores to reach the basin’s precious water.Indeed, thousands of kilometers of bore drains have been excavated through-out the basin to distribute water to privately owned sheep and cattle herds.These bore drains are small, open channels that can extend 100 kilometers ormore. Overall, almost 34,000 kilometers of bore drains have been excavated inQueensland and New South Wales and are presently being utilized. But be-cause these bore drains are open channels, up to 95 percent of the water iswasted through evaporation and seepage, and infestations of invasive woodyweeds such as prickly acacia in and around bore drains have proliferated as aconsequence of uncontrolled flow. Poorly maintained bore drains have alsocreated artificial “green” areas in the countryside that have been cited as a fac-tor in the explosive growth of kangaroos and rabbits, which have by theirsheer numbers altered some regional ecosystems and damaged agriculturalproductivity. Erosion problems are another common malady in drain areas,and there have been reports of incidents in which animal health has sufferedfrom exposure to high concentrations of minerals (such as sodium and fluo-ride) left behind after evaporation of aquifer water (Great Artesian BasinConsultative Council, 2000).

A number of Australian government initiatives aimed at addressing thisproblem have been initiated. The Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative(GABSI) is a jointly funded initiative of the commonwealth (federal) and stategovernments and pastoral bore owners aimed at protecting and preservinggroundwater pressure throughout the Great Artesian Basin. The approachtaken is a rehabilitative one that emphasizes capping or replacement of bores,drains, and water distribution infrastructure with more efficient materials(ibid.). For Australia as a whole, meanwhile, the country’s recent NationalWater Reforms Framework includes a number of provisions for groundwater,but further reforms to groundwater use and allocation are badly needed inmost states and territories.

Freshwater in New ZealandIn comparison to Australia, New Zealand is blessed with an abundant supplyof freshwater. Indeed, its average precipitation is more than three times that ofthe Australian continent, providing the country with ample freshwater re-sources to accommodate its relatively small population of 3.78 million. Infact, New Zealand uses a mere 1 percent of its 196.69 cubic kilometer total re-newable freshwater resource annually (UN Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion, 2002).


The Snowy River is one of the most

famous natural landmarks on the

Australian continent. Until the mid-

twentieth century, this wild river ran

unfettered from its origins in Eastern

Australia’s Snowy Mountains, part of

the Great Dividing Range that

separates the east coast from the rest

of the continent, to the sea. Australian

songs and stories are threaded with

paeans to the river’s untamed

character, most notably in A. B.

Patterson’s famous poem “The Man

from Snowy River”and a critically

acclaimed film of the same name.

In 1949, however, the Snowy River

became the centerpiece of one of the

most ambitious freshwater diversion

schemes of the twentieth century.This

project—The Snowy Mountains Hydro-

Electric Scheme—aimed to redirect

Snowy River water to the arid west side

of the Great Dividing Range, where

growing agricultural operations were

clamoring for water for irrigation. Over

the course of the next quarter-century

(1949 to 1974), more than 100,000

workers carved giant tunnels through

the mountains, built sixteen dams, and

constructed massive pipelines and

aqueducts for the project. By the time

construction was completed, the

Scheme had the capacity to pump 1.8

trillion gallons of water from the Snowy

River through the Great Dividing Range

and into the Murray and Murrumbidgee

rivers, where it was used for

hydroelectric power generation and

crop irrigation.This infusion of water

opened new areas for agricultural

development, and today the Snowy

Mountain Hydro-Electric Scheme

accounts for more than 82 percent of

hydroelectric power generation in

Australia. Indeed, it is an important

power source for households, shops,

and factories in Melbourne, Sydney, and

Canberra (Snowy Water Inquiry, 1998).

But the project also wreaked

wrenching ecological changes on the

Snowy River.Water volume in the river

was reduced to 1 percent of its former

might by the diversions.This diminished

flow drastically reduced the river’s

capacity to dilute chemical runoff from

farming and industrial operations. In

addition,water-starved sections of the

river downstream from the diversion

have seen marked deterioration of

ecosystems and major changes to the

character of the river channel.For

example, river flows became too weak to

clear vegetation from taking root or

move sediments deposited in the

riverbed.As a result,downstream

sections of the Snowy have narrowed

down and silted,with detrimental effects

to fish and other dependent species.

Finally,downstream communities noted

that the Snowy’s diminished flow has

reduced recreational options that might

otherwise be pursued,such as fishing,

camping,canoeing,and rafting (Pigram,

1998).

For many years, the sorry state of

the Snowy River has been a source of

Restoring a Legendary River

(continues)

This embarrassment of freshwater riches is due in part to the country’srugged, mountainous character. In fact, the Maori name for New Zealand,Aotearoa, literally means “the land of the long white cloud,” an indication oftopography’s influence on New Zealand’s hydrology. The high Southern Alpson the South Island are a particularly important influence on distribution ofprecipitation. Other influential factors include prevailing westerly winds,ocean currents that carry saturated air to both islands, and the country’s lati-tudinal position between warm subtropical waters and cool sub-Antarctic waters. The only areas of New Zealand subject to occasional shortages of


anger and distress for Australian

environmental groups. Indeed, a

multitude of campaigns to restore the

Snowy River to a semblance of its

former glory have been launched by

local and national environmental

groups over the years. In 2002 those

efforts finally came to fruition with the

launch of a joint Victoria/New South

Wales program to dramatically increase

the river’s flow. Ultimately, this ten-year,

AU$300 million initiative aimed to

return 21 percent of the Snowy’s

natural average flow to the river, with

an ultimate goal of increasing the

volume to 28 percent of its

prediversion flow.

Officials associated with the project

claim that the impact on irrigation

operations will be minimal, for the

restoration scheme emphasizes water

savings projects such as paying for

repairs of leaky pipelines, reduction of

evaporation losses stemming from

inefficient water storage infrastructure,

and improved water inventory systems

to monitor water use and highlight

points at which water is being

needlessly lost. Ranchers and farmers

dependent on the diversions are

skeptical of these assurances, and

concerns have been raised about the

potential impact of restoration on

hydroelectric power generation

capacity as well. But Australian

conservationists and fishermen are

ecstatic with the plan. Indeed,

Australian Conservation Foundation

president Peter Garrett hailed the

measure as “a historic turnaround in the

health of the Snowy”and claimed that

“it symbolizes a major shift in our

nation’s treatment of its rivers.”

Sources:Jones, Mathew. 2000.“The Snowy Flows

Again!”Habitat Australia 28

(December).

Pigram, John J. 1998.“Options for

Rehabilitation of Australia’s Snowy

River.”Armidale, Australia: Center for

Water Policy Research.

Snowy Water Inquiry. 1998. Final Report:

Snowy Water Inquiry. Sydney: Snowy

Water Inquiry.

Victoria Department of Natural

Resources and Environment. n.d.

Snowy River Journal. Available at

http://www.nre.vic.gov.au (accessed

February 2003).

freshwater are the so-called rain shadow regions on the eastern side of NewZealand’s mountain ranges. In these regions, higher population densities(both human and livestock) coupled with periodic dry spells can affect urbanand rural water supplies, agricultural production, and hydroelectricity gener-ation. For example, in places such as Central Otago, east of the Southern Alps,average rainfall is about 350 millimeters (14 inches) annually; by contrast, re-gions west of the Alps such as Fiordland and Westland receive an average rain-fall of more than 6,000 millimeters (236 inches) a year, with some localesoccasionally exceeding 13,000 millimeters (512 inches) annually (New Zea-land Ministry for the Environment, 1997).

In fact, water is so abundant across most of New Zealand that flooding is amajor concern for agriculture, industry, and urban populations alike. Floodscan occur in any season and in all regions of the country, and the severity ofthese events has increased since the arrival of European settlement becauseof land-clearing activities that have removed forests and other vegetationthat absorbed excess water. Despite extensive river and catchment controlschemes, damage from flooding is estimated to cost at least NZ$125 millionannually (ibid.).

By world standards, the state of New Zealand’s freshwater is excellent bothin terms of quality and quantity; the Pupu Springs that feed the WaikoropupuRiver near Takaka in the South Island have been described as possibly theclearest freshwater in the world (Smith, 1998). Unlike Australia, which hasnaturally high sediment loading in rivers, New Zealand’s rivers have low con-centrations of dissolved materials, and are low in nutrients.

But while New Zealand generally has very high quality freshwater, thisquality varies naturally according to the geology of the catchment and stream-flow volume. In addition, water quality has been increasingly influenced byanthropogenic activities, and varies according to surrounding land use. As ageneral trend, water quality is higher in mountain streams and in sparsely de-veloped areas throughout much of the South Island and the upper reaches ofmost North Island rivers. The quality declines measurably in lowland streamsand rivers, particularly in pasture-dominated catchments where livestock de-grade riparian habitat and deposit large volumes of waste into waterways(Hoare and Rowe, 1992). In some localized areas, degradation of rivers andstreams has been sufficient to make water unsuitable for drinking or recre-ational use, and it has damaged the health of resident fish species and aquaticecosystems (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997).

New Zealand has reported positive trends in reducing pollution of riversand coastal waters from sewage plants, industrial facilities, factories, and other“point sources” (specific sites) over the past three decades. These gains have

Freshwater 137

been attributed to increased environmental awareness and improvements inwaste disposal and treatment programs.

Another source of water pollution, urban stormwater, has also been thefocus of increased attention. Indeed, urban stormwater runoff has periodi-cally caused serious problems in New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland, andother metropolitan centers. Stormwater has polluted estuaries and harborswith sediment and toxic substances, including heavy metals from industrialactivities and oil from buses and automobiles. At times, stormwater has alsoinfiltrated and flooded sewerage systems (Auckland Regional Council, 1995).

In a process of reclamation to secure more agricultural land, wetland areasin New Zealand have been reduced by about 85 percent in the last centuryand a half, from nearly 700,000 hectares to about 100,000 hectares (Cromartyand Scott, 1996). Many of the remaining wetlands, including many that aresignificant repositories of floral and faunal biodiversity, are at a persistent riskof degradation from further reclamation activities, pollution, grazing, and in-troduced species of plants. Invasive species of plants, fish, and other animalsare a growing concern in wetlands and rivers as well.

Dams have also altered the character of many waterways in New Zealand.More than 400 dams with reservoir storage capacities greater than 18,500cubic meters have been constructed throughout New Zealand. Although thesedams were built for purposes including water storage, domestic and industrialsupply, and floodwater mitigation, the larger dams were constructed expresslyfor power generation. Indeed, fully 98 percent of the water that is harnessedfor human use in New Zealand is utilized to generate electricity (New ZealandMinistry for the Environment, 1997).

This emphasis on hydroelectric energy has made New Zealand far less de-pendent on oil and other energy sources that contribute to air pollution,greenhouse gases, and other environmental problems when consumed.However, critics believe that large dam developments in New Zealand havewreaked major alterations on hydrologic regimes, with consequential deple-tion of water quality and quantity. They note that large dams create significantbarriers to fish movements, including migration, which has diminished somefish populations and altered some aquatic ecosystems. Dams have also trans-formed entire watershed areas by flooding large valleys and raising the naturallevel of lakes. Some large hydroelectric dam developments in Australia, suchas the Snowy River Hydroelectric Scheme, have reduced the flow of somemajor rivers to a virtual trickle. Other dam developments that have dramati-cally altered the hydrology of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes include theBenmore Dam in the Waitaki headwaters, which has radically transformeddownstream freshwater environments; the Manapouri power station, which


receives half of the flow of Southland’s Waiau River via a diversion canal; anddams on Otago’s Clutha, Waitaki, and Waipori rivers and the North Island’sWaikato River (ibid.).

New Zealand also contains extensive groundwater aquifers, including un-derwater basins throughout some of the country’s most agriculturally pro-ductive districts—the Canterbury Plains, Marlborough and Tasman districts,Hutt Valley, Manawatu, Hawke’s Bay, the Bay of Plenty, the Waikato andHauraki lowlands, and South Auckland. Notably, these areas are east of theSouthern Alps and typically drier than the western portions of the SouthIsland and are located within areas prone to surface water shortages or sea-sonal fluctuations in river flows and rainfall. At times of low supply, thesegroundwater reserves become an important source of supply. Overall, approx-imately 40 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater supplies are now drawn fromgroundwater. Consequently, groundwater levels have fallen in most of NewZealand’s flood plains, as withdrawal is not rigorously regulated (ibid.; Huntand Bibby, 1992).

The use of coastal groundwater aquifers has led in some circumstances toseawater intrusion. In 1990, seawater intruded 600 meters (1,960 feet) into ashallow gravel aquifer at Lower Moutere near Nelson (northern South Island)after irrigation caused groundwater levels to drop. To address this situation,water use restrictions were imposed. This quick action enabled natural recharge

Freshwater 139

Hydro electricity station, Snowy Mountains, NSW. PAUL NEVIN/PHOTOLIBRARY/PICTUREQUEST

from rainfall to replenish the aquifer. In other circumstances, however, sea-water intrusion can last for many years (as has been the case in aquifers on theHeretaunga and Waimea plains and on the Coromandel Peninsula). To pre-vent such occurrences in the major urban center of Christchurch, the largestcity on the South Island, yearly “safe yields” (withdrawal limits) have been im-posed for the artesian aquifers.

Freshwater Supply in Oceania’s Pacific Island StatesThe twenty-two countries and territories of the Pacific islands region containapproximately 550,000 square kilometers (212,400 square miles) of land thatsupport approximately 7.5 million inhabitants. The numerous small islandstates and territories of the South Pacific are similar both in their tropical cli-matic character and in their limited freshwater resources. The independent is-land states—Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru,Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu—do not have strongwater-monitoring systems in place. But it is increasingly clear that on many ofthese far-flung isles, pressure on finite freshwater resources is becoming prob-lematic. After all, many of these countries are bereft of rivers or freshwaterlakes, relying entirely on a fragile groundwater lens floating on top of the sea’ssalt water. Fiji, for example, is composed of more than 300 islands, but only ahandful of larger islands contain river systems or freshwater lakes of any sizeor volume.

In recent years, numerous Pacific Island states have cited water supply andstorage issues and groundwater pollution as significant security concerns.Countries including Papua New Guinea and Samoa suffered through signifi-cant droughts in the late 1990s, and many nations have compromised their all-important groundwater aquifers through inadequate waste disposal systemsand unsustainable rates of withdrawal (South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, 1998; Loerzel, 1998). In response to these trends, internationalorganizations have urged the nations of Oceania to carefully monitor allpumping from the freshwater lens in order to mitigate unsustainable with-drawals, salt water contamination, and contamination from chemicals, dis-solved salts, and other threats to water quality. “Once the lens, which is in adynamic state of equilibrium, is contaminated (by saltwater intrusion, for ex-ample), the delicate balance between fresh and salt water may take years toreestablish in certain situations. If the problem is from a land-based source(pesticides or leachate, for example), the problem may persist much longer”(UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Entering the late 1990s, access to safe drinking water was variable through-out the region. Four countries—Niue, Tokelau, Tonga, and Tuvalu—reported


being able to provide access to safe water to all of their inhabitants.Conversely, only 30 percent of the people of the Federated States of Microne-sia had access to safe water, and only 23 percent of the population in PapuaNew Guinea—by far the largest country by land area and population inOceania, excluding Australia and New Zealand—enjoyed access to water ofgood quality. In other states, water quality tends to be worst in flooded river-ine and estuarine environments, and questions about water supply reliability(through periods of drought, for example) persist for a number of states (UNDevelopment Programme, 1996).

Given the rising pressure on freshwater resources from growing popula-tions in places like Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands, main-taining the health and vitality of freshwater ecosystems that do exist hasbecome an even more difficult task. For example, many freshwater wetlandscontaining numerous endemic plant and animal species have been cleared tomake way for growing populations or have been compromised by pollutionemissions from new industrial, logging, and agricultural activities. These vari-ous forces are manifesting themselves across the South Pacific, from Tonga,where relatively high standards of living have spurred rising demand forwater, to Fiji, where extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides by sugar caneplantations has degraded rivers and aquifers. In water-rich Papua NewGuinea, meanwhile, where numerous rivers and extensive wetlands are com-plemented by more than 5,000 freshwater lakes, subsistence agriculture is thelargest single economic activity. Most of the crops are rain-fed, which meansthat there is little need for irrigation. This dynamic is a major factor in thecountry’s low per capita freshwater consumption rate (UN Food and Agri-culture Organization, 2002). However, many freshwater resources have beenadversely affected by mining wastes, large scale commercial agriculture, anduntreated human waste. In addition, the expansion of logging practices hasincreased runoff volumes and sediment loads in rivers, and human interfer-ence has also been associated with the introduction of aquatic weeds andother invasive species that have disrupted natural ecosystems.

As the countries of Oceania venture deeper into the twenty-first century,freshwater protection and conservation are expected to become increasinglypressing issues. Historical shortfalls by governments in investment in urbansanitation, monitoring of water quality, and assessment of the environmentalimpact of major infrastructure developments (such as tourist resorts) couldprove disastrous if local, national, and regional authorities do not dedicatethemselves to dramatic improvements in their freshwater stewardship.Specific issues requiring significant progress in the near term include betterwatershed management, reductions in deforestation rates, improved publicawareness of wise water use and management, reforms in agricultural water

Freshwater 141

use for irrigation and other activities, and improvements in waste disposal(UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Sources:ABARE (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics). 2002. “Aus-

tralian Crop Report: Special Drought Issue.” Canberra: Commonwealth ofAustralia, October 29.

Auckland Regional Council. 1995.“The Environmental Impacts of Urban StormwaterRun-off.” ARC Environment Technical Publication No. 53. Auckland: Auck-land Regional Council.

Australian National Land and Water Resources Audit. 2001. Australian Catchment,River and Estuary Assessment 2002. 2 vols. Canberra: National Land and WaterResources Audit.

———. 2001. Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment 2000. Canberra: National Landand Water Resources Audit.

———. 2001. Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000. Canberra: National Landand Water Resources Audit.


Bibby, H. M., T. G. Caldwell, and T. H. Webb. 1995. “Geophysical Evidence on theStructure of the Taupo Volcanic Zone and Its Hydrothermal Circulation.”Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 68.

Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare: Communities Shaping the Land and the Future. Sydney:Allen and Unwin.

Cave, M. P., J. T. Lumb, and L. Clelland. 1993. Geothermal Resources of New Zealand.Wellington: Ministry of Commerce.

Cooper, A. B. 1992. Rural Impacts on Water Resources. Auckland: IIR WastewaterManagement, Treatment and Technology Conference.

Cromarty, P., and D. A. Scott. 1996. A Directory of Wetlands in New Zealand. Welling-ton: Department of Conservation.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 2002. The Great Artesian Basin, Factsand Figures. Brisbane: State of Queensland.

Duncan, M. J. 1992.“Flow Regimes of New Zealand Rivers.” In Waters of New Zealand.Edited by M. P. Mosley. Wellington: New Zealand Hydrological Society.

Freestone, H. J. 1992.“Hydrology and Large Water Projects.” In Waters of New Zealand.Edited by M. P. Mosley. Wellington: New Zealand Hydrological Society.

Glantz, M. H. 1996. Currents of Change: El Nino’s Impact on Climate and Society.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council. 1998. Great Artesian Basin Resource StudySummary, Great Artesian Basin. Brisbane: GABCC.

———. 2000. Great Artesian Basin Strategic Management Plan. Brisbane: GABCC.


Habermehl, M. A. 1982. “Springs in the Great Artesian Basin, Australia—Their Originand Nature.” Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology & Geophysics, AustraliaReport No. 235.

Harris, J. 1992. Fish Migration in the Darling River. Sydney: New South Wales Fisheries.

Hillier, J. 1996. The Great Artesian Basin: Management of Water Resources after 100Years of Development. Sydney: Geological Society of Australia.

Hoare, R. A., and L. K. Rowe, 1992. “Water Quality.” In Waters of New Zealand. Editedby M. P. Mosley. Wellington: New Zealand Hydrological Society.

Hunt, B. G., H. B. Gordon, and H. L. Davies. 1995. “Impact of the Greenhouse Effecton Sea Ice Characteristics and Snow Accumulation in the Polar Regions.”International Journal of Climatology 15.

Hunt, T. M., and H. M. Bibby. 1992. “Geothermal Hydrology.” In Waters of NewZealand. Edited by M. P. Mosley. Wellington: New Zealand HydrologicalSociety.

Kingsford, R. T. 2000. “Ecological Impacts of Dams, Water Diversions and RiverManagement on Floodplain Wetlands in Australia.” Austral Ecology 2000 25.

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. 1998. NationalDryland Salinity Program: Management Plan 1998–2003. Canberra: LWR-RDC.

Loerzel, A. 1998. Protect Our Source of Life: Clean Water. GEPA Supplement to PacificDaily News, April 17.

McConchie, J. A. 1992. “Urban Hydrology.” In Waters of New Zealand. Edited by M. P.Mosley. Wellington: New Zealand Hydrological Society.

McKellar, D. 1911. “My Country.” In The Closed Door and Other Verses. Melbourne:Specialty Press.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission. 2000. Review of the Operation of the Cap:Overview Report of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Canberra: MDBC.

———. 2002. Water Audit Monitoring Report 2000/01: Report of the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission on the Cap on Diversions. Canberra: MDBC.

Natural Environment Research Council. British Antarctic Survey, 2002. 2002. Availableat www.antarctica.ac.uk (accessed January 2003).


Smith, D. I. 1998. Water in Australia: Resources and Management. Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press.

Smith, D. J. 1998. “The World’s Clearest Fresh Water?” Water and Atmosphere 1, no. 2.

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 1998. Overview of Threats andManagement Regimes for International Waters of the Pacific Region. Apia,Western Samoa: SPREP.

———. 1998. Coastal Management Profiles: A Directory of Pacific Island Governmentsand Non Government Agencies with Coastal Management Related Responsibili-ties. Apia, Western Samoa: SPREP.

Freshwater 143

UN Development Programme. 1996. The State of Human Settlements and Urbani-zation in the Pacific Islands. Suva: UNDP.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Global Environment Outlook 2000. London:Earthscan.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “AQUASTAT Information System on Waterin Agriculture: Review of Water Resource Statistics by Country.” Available atwww.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/aglw/aquastat/water_res/index.htm (accessed December 2002).

World Resources Institute. 2002. EarthTrends Website Statistical Database. Available atwww.earthtrends.wri.org (accessed December 2002).

World Wide Fund for Nature Australia. 2001. Greening the 2001 Agenda: PriorityEnvironment Initiatives for Commonwealth Government 2002–2005. Sydney:WWF Australia.

———. 2003. Global Warming Contributes to Australia’s Worst Drought. Sydney: WWFAustralia.


7

Oceans and Coastal Areas

The marine resources under the jurisdiction of Australia, New Zealand, andthe other South Pacific Islands collectively known as Oceania dwarf the ter-

restrial holdings of the states in this region. Indeed, these island nations—manyof them scattered archipelagos themselves—are separated from one another byvast expanses of ocean. In total, the South Pacific’s twenty-four island states andterritories include over 10,000 islands sprinkled over more than 40 millionsquare kilometers (15.4 million square miles) of ocean. Many of these is-lands are virtual specks on the ocean surface. The Republic of the MarshallIslands alone contains more than 1,100 islands scattered across 1,210,000 kilo-meters(750,000 miles) of the central Pacific, but their combined land area is nolarger than that of the District of Columbia (Woodard, 2000). But the samemarine environment that isolates these nations and territories also serves as theregion’s common bond. It provides the people of the South Pacific with vitaltransportation, food, and economic activity, and it has profoundly influencedcultural identities and traditions in the region over many millennia.

Shared dependence on the ocean and its resources gives Australia and otherSouth Pacific states a significant stake in preserving the environmental healthof the sea, from estuaries and other coastal areas to coral reefs and deep-waterregions. But at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the waters of the SouthPacific are under severe stress from an array of ecological pressures includingpersistent overfishing, escalating levels of water pollution, and runawaycoastal development. Moreover, the region’s governments are grappling withthe specter of global warming, which, if not meaningfully addressed by indus-trialized nations half a world away, could produce rising sea levels capable ofengulfing several states of Oceania and partially submerging portions of manyother inhabited islands.

145

Pacific Island Nations Control Large Swaths of OceanThe South Pacific’s island states and territories are usually divided into threeculturally and geographically distinct subregions: Micronesia (includingPalau, Guam, Kiribati, Nauru, the Northern Mariana Islands, the MarshallIslands, and the Federated States of Micronesia), Melanesia (including NewGuinea, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and parts ofPapua New Guinea), and Polynesia (including New Zealand, Tuvalu, Tonga,Samoa, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, Pitcairn Island, and the CookIslands). All told, the South Pacific Islands region includes nine independentnations (Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga,Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Samoa), six self-governing entities that maintain someassociation with their former colonial power (Cook Islands, Niue, FederatedStates of Micronesia, Palau, Northern Mariana Islands), and eight territories,associated with the United States (American Samoa, Guam, and the NorthernMarianas), France (New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, and French Polynesia),New Zealand (Tokelau), and the United Kingdom (Pitcairn Island). Australiais sometimes lumped in with the rest of Oceania, but it is more often definedas a separate region of the world in recognition of its greater size, unique geo-graphical and cultural characteristics, and economic stature.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into force in1994, all coastal nations have sovereign control over the waters and seafloorthat lie up to 12 miles (19.4 kilometers) off their shores, as well as dominionover seas extending 200 miles (323 kilometers) from inhabitable land. The lat-ter area is known as an Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ, and this element ofthe global treaty provides even the smallest South Pacific Island nation withsovereign rights to explore, conserve, exploit, and manage the natural re-sources contained within significant expanses of sea. The thirty-three islandsthat constitute the tiny Micronesian nation of Kiribati, for example, have atotal land area of only 313 square miles (811 square kilometers), but these is-lands extend across about 2,400 miles (3,900 kilometers) of ocean, enablingthe country to claim the world’s eleventh-largest EEZ, at approximately 1 mil-lion square miles (more than 3 million square kilometers) (Howe, 1994). Alltold, the total EEZ area for the states and territories of Oceania, excludingAustralia and New Zealand, is 30.6 million square kilometers (11.8 millionsquare miles), about one-sixth of the earth’s total surface area (South PacificRegional Environment Programme, 1998).

Over the years, the nations of Oceania have occasionally used the combinedsize of their EEZs as leverage in international negotiations on fisheries man-


agement and other marine issues. In the 1980s, several nations of Oceania op-erating under the organizational banner of the South Pacific Forum used theirextensive legal jurisdiction over waters coveted by international fishing fleetsto nudge larger, industrialized nations toward an international ban on drift-netting, a fishing practice long condemned by environmentalists and scien-tists because it entangles and kills large numbers of birds, marine mammals,and other “by-catch” (nontarget species). First, the island nations united toforbid the use, possession, and transit of driftnets longer than 2.5 kilometers(1.5 miles) in the waters of member states. They then successfully lobbied theUnited Nations for passage of an international moratorium on driftnettingthat went into effect in December 1992 (Weber, 1994).

But the nations of Oceania have not always spoken with a unified voice onmarine issues, in part because of the region’s singular island cultures and thestunning variety of languages spoken (an estimated 1,200 distinct languagesare spoken in Oceania, including 700 in Papua New Guinea alone). In addi-tion, Oceania has extremely limited economic and political clout on the worldstage in nonmarine areas. These factors have diluted the island states’ influ-ence in the creation and implementation of international ocean policies.

In contrast, Australia and New Zealand—possessed of significant terrestrialholdings, comparatively large, wealthy, and educated populations, and hugeEEZs of their own—have exercised much greater influence over the marineresources of the South Pacific. Australia and New Zealand hold the world’sthird- and fourth-largest exclusive economic zones, respectively, withAustralia claiming 4.8 million square kilometers (1.854 million square miles)of ocean and New Zealand 4.64 million square kilometers (1.793 millionsquare miles) (each nation has about 6 percent of the global EEZ total) (SouthPacific Regional Environment Programme, 1998). Australia and New Zealandalso have a combined population of more than 23.5 million people, while theother states and territories of the Pacific Islands have only 7.5 million resi-dents among them (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 1998). In addition,Australia and New Zealand have a combined land area of 8 million squarekilometers (3.1 million square miles). The other states and territories ofOceania have a total land area of only 550,979 square kilometers (212,733square miles), 84 percent of which is accounted for by Papua New Guinea.

Australia and New Zealand also are the South Pacific’s lone nations withmodern economies; the other countries of Oceania are in varying stages ofeconomic development, but none are remotely in the same league as Aus-tralia. On most island states, poverty and heavy dependence on foreign aid arelong-standing realities, and environmental degradation is pervasive becauseof heavy use of pesticides, unsustainable rates of deforestation, poorly

Oceans and Coastal Areas 147

planned coastal development, and untreated releases of municipal and indus-trial effluents. All of these activities have had a deleterious impact on the qual-ity of the coastal waters upon which islanders depend so much for food andjobs. “Our land to sea ratio is generally so small that, with the possible excep-tion of the largest land masses of Papua New Guinea, all our islands are whollycoastal in character,” explained the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme.“This means that the whole island influences, or is influenced by,marine coastal and near-shore activities and processes. It also means that anatural or anthropogenic disaster such as a cyclone or a pollution accidentoften affects the entire society and economy of an island” (South Pacific Re-gional Environment Programme, 1998).

FisheriesOverfishing in Australiaand New ZealandThe South Pacific is one of the world’s largest swaths of ocean, but it providesonly about 2 percent of the globe’s total fishery production in terms of weight(UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002). Nestled next to the productive,shallow waters of the Tasman Sea and island states to the north, New Zealandpossesses the region’s single largest commercial fishery. In the mid-1990s thenation’s fleet accounted for about 70 percent of the total marine capture regis-tered by the combined fishing industries of Australia and New Zealand.

But while Australia is not among the world leaders in commercial fishing—it ranks only around fiftieth in the world in tonnage of fish caught annually(about 200,000 tons a year) despite having the globe’s third-largest EEZ—itscatch has a relatively high monetary value because it is heavily skewed towardthe harvest and export of expensive seafood such as oysters, scallops, lobster,and tuna. In addition, saltwater sport fishing ranks as one of Australia’s mostpopular outdoor pursuits. The Australian government estimates that about 25percent of the nation’s populace is actively engaged in the sport, and it esti-mates that about 30,000 tons of seafood are harvested by sportfishers eachyear (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998).

The modest size of the fisheries located off Australia’s shores is attributedto the continent’s smallish continental shelf and a relative dearth of nutrientsupon which marine species feed. Australia’s few rivers deliver low nutrientloads to coastal waters, and offshore currents do not deliver upwellings ofnutrient-rich deep waters. Of those marine species that do exist in Australianwaters, however, many are unique to that part of the world. In the nation’ssouthern temperate waters, as much as 80 percent of the species are en-demic—not found anywhere else (ibid.).


Both New Zealand and Australia are harvesting some fish species at rates nearor exceeding levels of sustainability. Efforts to relieve pressure on stressed fish-eries have ranged from catch quotas to licensing restrictions, but in many casesthese steps have been taken only after evidence of dramatic declines in fish pop-ulations becomes impossible to ignore. Moreover, attempts to rein in the fishingindustry are complicated by the potential economic repercussions on fishingcommunities. In Australia, for instance, marine industries contribute aboutAus$30 billion a year—8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product—andaccount for about 7 percent of the country’s total export value (ibid.).

Some analysts have touted aquaculture as a means of relieving fishing pres-sure on wild species. Numerous farms producing oysters, pearls, trout, andornamental fish have already been established, and the industry has enjoyedparticularly strong growth in rural areas. In 1990, Australia’s aquaculture pro-duction was valued at Aus$200 million. By 1996, it had nearly doubled, and itis projected to reach Aus$1.4 billion by 2005 (ibid.). But as other observersnote, the environmental implications associated with these operations are notinsignificant. They include loss of estuaries utilized by wild species for feed-ing and breeding, contamination of near-shore waters with chemicals andwaste from penned fish, loss of genetic diversity in farmed species, and dam-age to wild stocks that breed with escapees from aquaculture operations(Zann, 1995).


140

120

100

80

60

40

20

01950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

Million tons

Aquaculture Capture fisheries

Figure 7.1 World Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production

SOURCE: UN Food and Agriculture Organization

Fishing Sustains the Island Nations of Oceania Contemporary fishing practices in the sovereign waters of the island states ofOceania take wildly different forms. On numerous islands, subsistence fisher-men ply their trade in much the same way as did their ancestors. They roamout to near-shore fishing grounds (typically shallow-water shelves or coralreefs) each morning in primitive dugout boats or massive double-outriggercanoes, then slip back to shore at day’s end, their nets weighed down with thefish that feed their families and pay for clothing and other necessities. Indeed,many of Oceania’s communities rely on marine fisheries as their primarysource of protein. But the South Pacific is also patrolled by hundreds of deep-sea fishing vessels, with flags from nearly two dozen countries fluttering overdecks bristling with modern fishing accoutrements. Indeed, some SouthPacific states now earn more from access fees, paid by deep-water foreign fish-ing fleets that wish to harvest within their territorial waters, than they do fromany other economic sector (Hinrichsen, 1998; UN Food and Agriculture Org-anization, 2002).

Most of the foreign fishing fleets that crisscross the South Pacific are pursu-ing tuna. The Pacific Islands region is the most productive tuna fishing area inthe world, accounting for approximately one-third of all harvested tuna. Theeconomic value of this fish eclipses that of all other fisheries in the region.


Subsistence fishermen on Ifaluk Atoll in the Caroline Islands. ANDERS RYMAN/CORBIS

According to the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the totalregional tuna catch in 1995 was valued at U.S.$1.7 billion, six times the valueof all other Pacific Island fisheries combined. In Oceania, the amount of tunacaught is more than nine times that of all other fisheries combined. Yet only 7percent of the annual tuna catch is taken by vessels flying flags of one of theOceania states; the remaining 93 percent is harvested by fleets hailing fromChina, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, the Philippines, South Korea, the UnitedStates, and other nations. This distribution is a major reason why less than0.25 percent of the international tuna catch enters the domestic food supply ofPacific Island states (South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1998).

Certainly, the access fees that the Pacific Islands charge for tuna fishingrights are an important boon to their economies. In fact, these fees repre-sented about 10 percent of the combined GDP of Pacific Island countries inthe mid-1990s. But access license fees charged in the mid-1990s amounted toless than 4 percent of the total value of the regional tuna catch, which meansthat foreign fishing industries are pocketing most of the money generated bythe harvest of tuna stocks (ibid.).

Some tuna populations in the South Pacific have dropped significantly inrecent years, a development attributed primarily to years of overzealous har-vesting. Southern bluefish tuna populations, for instance, declined precipi-tously in the mid-1980s, and environmentalists continue to classify the speciesas critically endangered. Signs of unsustainable fishing are evident in skipjackand albacore fisheries as well (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002).But fishing pressure on tuna stocks remains very strong. The Japanese fleet,for instance, continues to harvest and import large volumes of sashimi-gradebluefin and bigeye tuna from the waters of Oceania. These species are sold inJapan for as much as U.S.$50,000 a fish for use in making sashimi, a populardish of thinly sliced raw fish. The size of Japan’s tuna harvests has drawn firefrom environmental groups and some marine scientists, who claim that over-fishing of tuna and other top predators is triggering major changes in the re-gion’s marine ecosystems. For its part, the Japanese fishing industry contendsthat southern bluefin tuna populations have been underestimated, and it con-tinues to press for higher catch quotas.

Indications that tuna and other stocks are being harvested at unsustainablerates have not escaped the notice of the governments of the Pacific Islands. Infact, these states have historically displayed a conservationist approach to ma-rine species management, in part because of their own limited capacity fordeep-water fishing, but also because of entrenched traditions of local resourceownership and deeply felt awareness of the importance of sustainable fishingpractices in preserving community stability (Preston, 1997; South Pacific


Regional Environment Programme, 1998). But Oceania’s island states havelimited resources to conserve, manage, and study their marine resources. Forexample, the Pacific Island states have little power to repel foreign fleets thatillegally swoop across maritime boundaries and conduct harvesting opera-tions in sovereign waters. They also have only meager resources to enforcefishing regulations on catch quotas and fishing practices. As a result, fisher-men continue to use explosives, cyanide, bleach, and other destructive toolson fish-rich coral reefs off the waters of American Samoa, Fiji, the MarshallIslands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and other regions of Oceania withlittle fear of punishment.

Finally, pressures to make fishery management decisions for short-termeconomic gain are growing across Oceania, as native peoples look to garner agreater share of the riches being pulled out of the sea. Indigenous commercialtuna-fishing vessels are proliferating in the Pacific Islands, with Fiji, theSolomon Islands, and American Samoa all now maintaining their own deep-


Table 7.1 Tuna Catch by Major Species in the Secretariat of the PacificCommunity Statistical Area

Catch (thousands of tons)

Year Skipjack Yellowfin Albacore Bigeye Total

1976 167.5 62.0 30.0 42.8 302.41977 200.2 73.6 35.9 41.1 350.81978 230.0 86.0 30.4 27.9 374.31979 186.4 82.7 25.4 39.1 333.71980 211.8 104.5 39.8 41.6 397.71981 254.6 110.2 31.1 28.2 424.21982 266.6 111.2 28.8 29.0 435.61983 426.1 141.3 20.2 26.5 614.11984 434.8 129.4 19.6 32.2 616.01985 367.3 124.6 27.3 40.5 559.61986 431.1 126.4 32.5 34.5 624.41987 406.9 183.2 23.7 40.7 654.51988 541.6 127.9 33.2 35.7 738.31989 531.3 181.2 47.5 34.2 794.21990 589.3 202.8 31.0 52.1 875.21991 759.1 229.3 24.6 36.7 1,049.61992 686.4 275.4 41.2 44.0 1,047.01993 535.8 284.3 34.3 49.4 903.81994 663.2 263.4 38.5 59.3 1,024.41995 666.8 215.8 38.3 37.3 958.2

SOURCE: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2000

water fleets. “As the region’s small island states and territories evolve intomodern economies, their traditional fisheries management systems are crum-bling. Worse, as those traditional methods of coastal governance—based onclan and community enforcement—collapse, they leave no viable enforce-ment mechanisms in place” (Hinrichsen, 1998).

Marine Pollution in the South PacificAustralia and the other nations of the South Pacific region oversee large sec-tions of ocean and coastline in which relatively pristine conditions still pre-vail. But other marine ecosystems of the region—and especially those systemsadjacent to coastal population centers—have suffered considerable damage asa result of human activity. Indignities visited upon these fragile waters everyday include partially treated or untreated sewage; agricultural pesticides andfertilizers; livestock waste; sediments generated by mining, forestry, farming,and coastal dredging; airborne pollutants from automobiles, mining opera-tions, and power plants; discharges of heavy metals and other pollutants fromindustrial facilities; seepage from landfills; and discharges of cooling waterfrom power plants and industrial sites that destroy temperature-sensitivesedentary species such as corals.

Water Quality in Australia Linked to Population PressureMuch of Australia’s coastline is lightly populated and undeveloped. In theseregions, the environmental condition of bays, estuaries, and near-shore reefareas is excellent. But marine conditions near coastal metropolitan areas—where about 85 percent of all Australians live—have deteriorated markedlyover the past three decades. In these areas, long stretches of coastline havebeen sacrificed to make way for marinas, residential developments, andcommercial activities. Moreover, these rapidly expanding cities generateever-greater amounts of trash, sewage, and other pollutants that eventuallyinfiltrate and degrade near-shore marine habitats. As a result, pollution fromheavy metals, municipal waste, and other contaminants has become so se-vere in some urban estuaries and bays that conditions constitute a publicsafety concern. “Public health may be at risk from high concentrations offaecal coliform and enterococcal bacteria in estuarine and coastal waters, ei-ther through contact recreation (especially swimming) or consumption ofcontaminated seafood,” admitted the Australian government. “Along somebeaches (e.g., in the Sydney harbour) and under certain conditions (follow-ing heavy rains or sewage system overflows), beach users risk a range of ill-nesses such as carditis, conjunctivitis, hepatitis, and skin and woundinfections” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998).


During the 1990s, Australia did make substantial gains in upgrading sewagetreatment plants, treating and reusing stormwater and wastewater, and imple-menting coastal water quality monitoring programs. After years of inactionand equivocation, Australia also produced a comprehensive national oceanspolicy in 1998. This policy hinges on the formation of regional marine plansthat will be binding on all governmental agencies. It includes a multitude ofspecific goals as well, from reviewing ocean transport regulations and the en-vironmental impact of aquaculture operations to seeking greater interna-tional conservation protection for the great white shark (ibid.).

But despite this increased attention from federal authorities, “the quality ofestuarine coastal and inshore waters has not improved over the past five yearson a national basis. Water quality has improved in specific localities and re-gions, such as coastal waters off Sydney [but] more than half of Australia’s es-tuaries are modified and are not in good condition as a result of the pressurescaused by human settlements. Fragmentation of responsibilities for estuarymanagement [between local, provincial, and national agencies] is delayingimprovements to the condition of estuaries” (Australian State of the Envi-ronment Committee, 2001).

The latter factor is a particularly vexing obstacle to greater habitat protec-tion. In 1989, Australia’s federal government agreed to pass regulatory respon-sibility for the first three nautical miles offshore to state governments(responsibility for waters further offshore—the nation’s EEZ—remained withfederal authorities). But responsibility for many local land use decisions(beachfront development, restrictions on commercial or recreational activity,implementation of nature conservation areas) is often passed down to themunicipal level, albeit within broad state planning parameters. Many munici-pal boards are decidedly prodevelopment in their outlook, making it difficultfor environmentalists and other proconservation constituencies to realizeeven modest preservation goals.

Further inland, meanwhile, widespread clearing of land for agriculture hasgenerated massive runoffs of sediments and nutrients that are ultimately de-posited in fragile estuaries, causing eutrophication and other problems.Indeed, toxic algae blooms erupted with increasing frequency and severityalong the shores of both Australia and New Zealand during the 1990s. In addi-tion, pollutants carried by air and water from Australia’s extensive mining op-erations have contributed to the degradation of coastal waters. All told,land-based pollution is believed to contribute up to 80 percent of all marinepollution entering Australian waters (Zann, 1996; Australian State of the En-vironment Committee, 2001).


Another problem bedeviling sections of Australia’s coastline is depositionof trash, much of it nonbiodegradable in nature. “Australia’s beaches are in-creasingly littered with plastic bottles, plastic bags, tangled fishing lines, netsand other rubbish. Litter comes from ‘tourist trash’ left by beach-goers or iswashed there. The latter comes from land litter washed from catchments andstormwater drains, from ships’ garbage, from discarded fishing gear from an-glers and fishing boats, and from remote sources far across the ocean. Urbanbeaches are worst affected, but even the most remote coastal and islandbeaches are not free from litter” (Zann, 1995).

Australia’s dependence on sea transport for trade has also impacted near-shore waters. Approximately 97 percent of Australia’s total trade volume istransported via marine shipping, with most goods carried by foreign shippingservices. This situation has made Australian waters particularly vulnerable toalien species that accompany these vessels in their ballast waters or on the out-side of hulls. Studies indicate that at least 200 species of foreign origin havebeen introduced into Australia’s seas in this manner, and while the Australiangovernment acknowledges that “many of these species slip quietly and unno-ticed into our marine systems, forming small populations that do not inter-fere with the ecosystem,” it notes that “some of these species cause dramaticchanges and threaten entire habitat types, and some cause toxic algal bloomsthat threaten oyster and mussel fisheries and the health of those who eat af-fected shellfish” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998). In recognition of thisthreat, Australia has taken a leading role in international efforts to combat theintroduction of exotic species in marine areas.

Finally, Australia utilizes marine transport as the primary vehicle for ex-porting oil, and it maintains significant offshore oil exploration and drillingfacilities. Indeed, offshore petroleum operations generate approximately $8billion annually, contribute $2.4 billion in tax revenue each year, and accountfor 85 percent of the country’s petroleum consumption (ibid.). In both ofthese areas, Australia has a very good safety and environmental record. Thenation’s offshore oil exploration and drilling operations have lost only an esti-mated 800 barrels of oil to the sea, and while three major tanker spills (definedas over 1,000 tons) have been recorded in Australian waters over the years,none appear to have caused major or permanent ecological damage. Indeed,the leading source of marine oil pollution in Australia is oil-laced materialsthat enter the sea from sewage and drainage systems.Nonetheless, the possi-bility of a major spill accident from offshore facilities or a tanker mishap trou-bles many Australians, for even a minor spill could devastate fragile marinehabitats such as near-shore coral reefs, which can trap oil slicks in species-rich


Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is under threat from record warm temperatures, overfishing, and pollution.

REUTERS NEWMEDIA INC./CORBIS

near-shore areas. The environmental repercussions associated with major oilcontamination events are so great that Australian law strictly forbids oil andgas exploration in and around the Great Barrier Reef, the continent’s most fa-mous natural treasure. Nonetheless, oil pollution remains a threat to this andother areas. “Every year 200 tankers carrying over 100,000 tons of oil, and1800 ships with up to 5000 tons of fuel oil, travel along the inner route be-tween the coast and the outer [Great Barrier] Reef. A large spill could not moveout to open ocean, and limited wave activity means that it would not dispersewell by natural agitation. It could ruin the reef life and the beauty of the reefover large areas” (Young, 2000).

Among the nations of Oceania, disposal of raw sewage and other waste ma-terials has been a perennial problem, and one that appears to be worsening.Few states or territories have effective sewage treatment facilities, and regula-tions governing industrial releases of pollutants are inadequate. As a result,the coastlines around nearly every urban center in the Pacific are strewn withuntreated sewage, municipal wastes, and household refuse (Hinrichsen,1998). Countries and territories such as Fiji, New Caledonia, Guam, andPapua New Guinea have fouled large sections of their coastlines with indus-trial pollutants, visiting particularly severe damage on estuaries and bays thatare essential components of marine ecosystems. Fiji’s heavily populated SuvaHarbor, for example, has been transformed into a toxic mix of heavy metals,untreated sewage, and chemical effluents. Some of these pollutants enter theharbor directly, while others leach into the waterway from the Suva city dump,which is situated directly next to the harbor. These pollutants, trapped in theport area by an offshore reef that severely limits exchange of harbor waterwith that of the open sea, have made consumption of local shellfish and fish aserious health issue (Cripps, 1992; Sheppard, 2000).

Other pollution problems defy easy answers as well, for they are deeply in-terwoven into the socioeconomic dynamics of the islands. For example, litteris discarded indiscriminately, with little regard for the environment or aes-thetic beauty, by residents of many island states. As a result, trash is an unfor-tunate presence on countless beaches, mangroves, and other natural areas inOceania. This entrenched acceptance of pollution as a “natural” state of affairswithin societal mores makes ecologically sound personal and business behav-ior tremendously difficult to institute. In addition, many South Pacific statescontinue to make extensive use of chemicals that are banned or heavily regu-lated in other parts of the world. For example, use of the pesticide DDT hasbeen outlawed in many other areas of the world because of its deadly impacton wildlife and concerns about public safety. But DDT and other hazardous


chemicals are widely utilized across much of the South Pacific, with few re-strictions on their implementation or disposal.

Reefs and Other Marine ResourcesThe South Pacific is home to some of the world’s greatest concentrations ofecologically significant marine treasures. Australia’s coastal waters, for in-stance, have the largest seagrass and coral reef systems on the planet, and itsshoreline holds the world’s third-largest area of mangrove forest. But in-creased pollution emissions from industry and agriculture, coupled withwholesale land conversions, both inland and along coastal areas, have dramat-ically escalated pressure on these resources (Wilkinson, 2000). The marine re-sources of the states and territories of Oceania are also at risk, their integrityjeopardized by pollution generated by increasingly urbanized populationswith limited financial and institutional ability to implement effective marineprotection mechanisms. “Urbanization is a trend that the South Pacific shareswith virtually every other region of the world,” observed one expert. “Butsmall islands, with limited space and resources, can least afford the damagingeffects of crowded coasts” (Hinrichsen, 1998).

Reefs of the South PacificCoral reefs constitute the single most important and extensive of the varioustypes of marine ecosystems in the South Pacific. A vital source of breeding,nursery, feeding, and shelter habitat for fish and shellfish caught for sport,subsistence, and commercial purposes, reefs also generate economic activityin a host of other ways, from attracting international tourists to providingcoasts with protection from severe weather events (South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme, 1998).

In the mid-1990s approximately 70 percent of the South Pacific’s coral reefresources—believed to be about 15 percent of the world total—were classifiedas being in good or excellent condition. But the remaining 30 percent, includ-ing sections of internationally famous reef systems such as Australia’s GreatBarrier Reef, had been degraded to one extent or another by runoff pollution,sedimentation, overfishing, coral mining, and fishing with cyanide or otherenvironmentally destructive tools (Jameson, 1995; Wilkinson, 2000). Sincethen, the amount of reef area believed to be under imminent threat fromhuman activity has continued to increase.

Virtually no region of Oceania still boasts pristine reef resources. On theSolomon Islands, for instance, large-scale—and largely unregulated—loggingand mining operations have virtually destroyed near-shore coral reefs andother habitat vital for fish and shellfish stocks, and the outlook for stemming


this abuse is grim (as of 1996 more than four dozen mining companies wereexploiting mineral deposits in the islands). Elsewhere, in the Mariana Islands,a 1996 survey revealed that more than 90 percent of the archipelago’s coralreefs were in poor to fair condition, with less than 50 percent of the reefs stillshowing live coral cover. And in Tahiti, the main island of French Polynesia,the region’s coral reefs have been abused by a multitude of destructive humanactivities, including overfishing, mining and dredging, coastal development,and heavy discharges of raw sewage and industrial waste (Grigg, 1996; Wilkin-son, 2000).

The greatest of the South Pacific’s reef systems is Australia’s Great BarrierReef, and it too is under stress from human activities. Composed of approxi-mately 2,900 distinct reefs and 940 islands, the Great Barrier Reef stretches forabout 2,500 kilometers (1550 miles) off the shoreline of western Australia.The single largest system of coral reefs on the planet, it is believed to holdmore than 400 species of coral, 4,000 species of molluscs, 1,500 species of fish,6 species of turtles, 35 species of sea birds, and 23 species of sea mammals(Zann, 1996).

Much of the Great Barrier Reef remains in good shape, with marine ecosys-tems functioning without major disturbances from human activities. Oildrilling and mining activities are banned throughout the reef ’s waters, and asthe centerpiece of Australia’s extensive system of marine parks, activities inand around the reef are closely regulated and monitored. But concerns aboutthe long-term health of the Great Barrier Reef have intensified in recent years.Water quality in some inshore areas has declined markedly, eroded by massiveconversions of land to agricultural use, which in turn has increased dischargesof sediments and nutrients into the sea. Overfishing of reef species and intro-ductions of exotic species from passing ships have also been blamed for upset-ting the balance of delicate reef ecosystems. The crown-of-thorns starfish hasalso emerged as a deadly threat to the reef in recent decades. Periodic popula-tion explosions of this creature, which devours the coral polyps that buildreefs, have damaged nearly 20 percent of the Great Barrier Reef over the pastthirty years (ibid.).

Environmentalists and scientists also have expressed serious concern abouta possible recurrence of a 1998 “coral bleaching” episode that damaged coralreefs around the world (“bleaching” is a process wherein reefs lose the algaeupon which they depend for their survival). Attributed to unusually highocean temperatures and intense solar radiation, the 1998 outbreak affected 87percent of the system’s inner reefs and 28 percent of its offshore reefs.

In recent years, somber warnings about the possible future of the GreatBarrier Reef have proliferated. A 2001 World Wide Fund for Nature study


reported that the inshore coral and seagrass meadows of the Great BarrierReef were under particular stress, claiming that 28 million tons of sedimentflowed into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef each year, the equivalent of3.5 million dump trucks emptying soil onto the reef. The report blamed thistrend on the wholesale changes taking place in the reef ’s catchment area,stating that nearly 77 percent of the catchment had been converted to graz-ing land, leaving only 11 percent of the land as undeveloped wilderness. Italso charged that up to 80 percent of freshwater wetlands, which filter pollu-tion runoff before contaminants enter the reef area, have been lost on ac-count of cane growing—which produces high concentrations of nitrates—and other coastal development (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2001). Oneyear later, the Australian Institute of Marine Science issued a report thatechoed many of the WWF’s findings. The Australian Institute of MarineScience study bluntly warned that large expanses of the Great Barrier Reefwere slowly choking to death on fertilizer and pesticide-laden runoff createdby the clearance of wetlands and forests for agricultural purposes alongAustralia’s western coast. “Terrestrial runoff may have serious indirect andlong-term impacts when acting in combination with storms, coral bleachingor crown of thorns starfish outbreaks,” it concluded (Australian Institute ofMarine Science, 2001).

Flora and Fauna under Stress in South Pacific WatersAustralia and Oceania possess some of the world’s greatest tracts of seagrassesand mangroves. Australia’s waters contain the largest expanses of seagrasses onthe globe, and mangrove forests adorn the shorelines of numerous SouthPacific islands. Both seagrasses and mangroves are significant ecological as-sets. Mangroves, which are especially prevalent in the western reaches ofOceania, contribute to coastal water quality by acting as a sink for sediments,nutrients, pollutants, and contaminants that can damage marine ecosystems.They also serve as a buffer against cyclones and other severe weather events,and play an important role as breeding, feeding, and shelter habitat for a vari-ety of marine species. Seagrasses, which also exist in greater abundance inwestern Oceania, also provide food, shelter, and breeding habitat for manyspecies, including endangered dugong and sea turtle species. In addition, sea-grass beds aid in stabilizing coastal lands and help maintain coastal waterquality by filtering nutrients.

Still, these linchpins of the South Pacific’s coastal ecosystems are in jeop-ardy in some areas. Countless mangroves have been cut down across the re-gion to make way for new commercial and residential construction, while


numerous other stands are dying because of sustained and intensive exposureto hazardous chemicals and other pollutants. Seagrass beds have also been de-pleted by sewage and sediment from urban runoff. These discharges createtoxic blooms that crowd out seagrasses and other marine life, leaving barrenseafloor. Loss of seagrasses is a growing problem in many developing SouthPacific states, but it is also apparent in the waters of Australia. Indeed, local-ized depletion of seagrass beds is evident all around the continent, fromCockburn Sound in Western Australia to South Australia’s Gulf of St. Vincent(Young, 2000). Inevitably, these losses have harmed marine wildlife. For ex-ample, the loss of seagrass beds has been cited as a significant factor in thedramatic downturns in populations of loggerhead turtles and dugongs inAustralian waters.

Despite these problems, however, the South Pacific continues to boast ahigh level of marine biodiversity, especially in near-shore waters. The regioncontains globally significant populations of numerous rare and endangeredspecies, including whales, sharks, marine turtles, giant clams, dugongs, andcrustaceans. In addition, the region nourishes important populations of sealions, fur seals, tuna, marlin, swordfish, and other creatures, including terns,cormorants, albatrosses, and other seabirds.

Many of these species are thriving, in part because conservation efforts haveincreased in recent years. But human activities still affect wildlife populationsin a variety of unintended ways, and in some cases the impact has been signifi-cant. For example, mesh netting erected near swimming areas to keep out dan-gerous species of sharks has been implicated in the deaths of large numbers ofdolphins, dugongs, and gray nurse sharks, which are now imperiled (Aus-tralian State of the Environment Committee, 2001). Elsewhere, trawling byfishing vessels has been blamed for steady declines in green and loggerheadturtle populations in northern Australia.

Marine Protected Areas in Australia and OceaniaCreatures that make their home in Australian waters have benefited enor-mously from that nation’s extensive system of marine parks. Indeed, Australiais the global leader in this regard. In the mid-1990s, it held about one-quarterof the total number of marine parks in the world (Zann, 1995), and duringthe late 1990s state, territorial, and commonwealth governments passed aflurry of legislation establishing several new protected areas. By the close ofthe twentieth century, Australia had formally designated 190 marine pro-tected areas (MPAs) covering 60 million hectares (Australian State of theEnvironment Committee, 2001), and in 2002 it announced plans to create anew 6.5 million hectare reserve around the Heard Island and McDonald


Islands group, located 4,500 kilometers (2,790 miles) southwest of the main-land and 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) north of Antarctica. Formal protectionof this sub-Antarctic island group, which maintains pristine ecosystems thatsupport charismatic albatross, seal, and penguin species, will create the globe’slargest fully protected marine reserve.

The crown jewel of Australia’s MPA system, though, is Great Barrier ReefMarine Park. Currently the largest marine park in the world—it covers anarea larger than the United Kingdom—it protects most of the reef ’s sprawl-ing length. This region first received formal protection from the Australiangovernment in 1975, when proposals to establish offshore oil drilling andmining operations on the reef sparked public outrage. Today, it is managedas a multiple-use park, with sections cordoned off exclusive for marinepreservation, scientific research, light tourism, and some types of commer-cial fishing.

Elsewhere in the South Pacific, the level of meaningful protection for ma-rine areas varies considerably. Some island states and territories have estab-lished conservation areas of laudable size and number to protect reefs,beaches, mangrove forests, and other ecological treasures from developmentor exploitation. In recent years, five Pacific Island nations have even declaredtheir EEZs to be whale sanctuaries (South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, 2002). But other nations of Oceania have not yet established sig-nificant protections for any of their coastal or marine resources.

Climate Change Models Suggest a Bleak Future for Oceania Global warming has emerged as one of the world’s most pressing environ-mental issues. But whereas the impact of climate change associated withglobal warming may bring wrenching change to the ecosystems, economies,and demographic characteristics of the industrialized nations of Europe,North America, and other parts of the world, it threatens to constitute a trulycataclysmic event in the South Pacific. Scientists believe that if greenhouse gasemissions continue to increase, spurring incremental but steady increases inthe earth’s temperature, sea levels will rise as the poles’ massive ice sheets meltand shrink. Under climate change models of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures and sea levels will risesignificantly from 1990 to 2100. According to IPCC models, temperatures areprojected to rise by 1.4 degrees Celsius (3 degrees Fahrenheit) to 5.8 degreesCelsius (12.5 degrees Fahrenheit), and sea levels will rise from 0.1 meter (3.9inches) to 0.9 meter (35.5 inches) (Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, 2001).


A worldwide rise in sea level of even modest proportions would increaseOceania’s vulnerability to storms, which may become more frequent in awarming world. Hurricanes and other storms will be more likely to infiltratedeep inland, poisoning already limited croplands and freshwater supplies withsalt. Moreover, essential infrastructure—homes, businesses, fishing vesselsand canneries, and so forth—may become more vulnerable to storms of evenmoderate strength.

Even more significantly, rising sea levels would claim a significant percent-age of the total land area of the South Pacific states, and totally submergemany islands altogether. “For many small-island states, sea-level rise will notbe simply expensive but apocalyptic, a most biblical end to their land, culture,and history. A 3-foot rise would consume much, but not all, of the FederatedStates of Micronesia and the Solomon Islands in the Pacific and the Maldivesin the Indian Ocean. It would completely submerge at least three nations thatconsist entirely of atolls: the Marshalls, Kiribati, and Tuvalu. . . . Not surpris-ingly, the governments of small island states attach greater urgency to climatechange issues than most countries” (Woodard, 2000).

Already, the threat of global warming has attracted serious attention fromOceania’s states and territories. A number of South Pacific nations have joinedwith other island countries around the world to form a diplomatic blockcalled the Association of Small Island States in order to lobby industrializednations like the United States, China, and India to reduce their greenhouse gasemissions. In addition, several South Pacific states are already diverting fundsthat would normally be spent on education and health care toward climate-change preparation programs (ibid.).

In some areas of Oceania, these preparations include the creation of evacu-ation plans. According to a 1992 study of the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration, saving the Marshall Islands from rising sea levels andstorms would require the entire output of the Marshallese economy over atleast a century. In a warming world, peoples such as the Marshallese will haveno option but to relocate. “Retreat may take the form of Marshallese movingto least vulnerable areas within or among atolls in the country, with MajuroAtoll being developed as the ultimate safe haven for the nation,” stated NOAA.“Full retreat of the entire population of Majuro Atoll and the Marshall Islandsmust be considered in planning for worse case [sea-rise] and climate changescenarios” (Holthus, 1992).

If sea levels do rise significantly as a result of global warming, mass reloca-tions of affected peoples will almost surely be implemented, preventing seri-ous loss of human life. Already, New Zealand’s government is openly studyingways in which it might incorporate refugees from imperiled states into its


population with a minimum of economic and social disruption. But if thepeoples of Oceania are ultimately forced to abandon their homelands, theircultures will ultimately be lost under the waves as well.

Sources:Acharya, Anjali. 1995. “Small Islands: Awash in a Sea of Troubles.” World Watch

(November–December).

Anderson, Ian. 1996. “Return of the Coral Eaters.” New Scientist (February 3).

Australian Fisheries Management Authority. 2001. Annual Report 2000. Canberra:AFMA.

Australian Institute of Marine Science. 2001. “Long-Term Monitoring of the GreatBarrier Reef: Status Report No. 5.” AIMS, CRC Reef Research Centre, and theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, November.

Australian State of the Environment Committee. 2001. Australia State of theEnvironment Report 2001. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bleakley, Chris. 1997. Review of Critical Marine Habitats and Species in the PacificIslands Region. Apia, Samoa: Strategic Action Programme for InternationalWaters of the Pacific Islands Region.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia’s Oceans Policy. 2 vols. Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia.

Cripps, K. 1992. “Survey of Point Sources of Industrial Pollution Entering the PortWaters of Suva.” Suva: Ports Authority of Fiji.

Grigg, Richard, and Charles Birkeland. 1996. Status of Coral Reefs in the Pacific.Sydney: Scientific Committee on Coral Reefs of the Pacific Science Asso-ciation.

Hinrichsen, Don. 1998. Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Holthus, P., et al. 1992. Vulnerability Assessment of Accelerated Sea Level Rise: CaseStudy: Majuro Atoll, Marshall Islands. Apia, Western Samoa: SPREP.

Howe, K. R., Robert C. Kiste, and Brij V. Lal. 1994. Tides of History: The Pacific Islandsin the Twentieth Century. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1998. The Regional Impacts of ClimateChange: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC.

———. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Impacts, Adaptation, andVulnerability: Summaries for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.

Jameson, Stephen, John McManus, and Mark Spalding. 1995. State of the Reefs: Re-gional and Global Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998. EnvironmentalPerformance Reviews: Australia. Paris: OECD.

Nickerson, Colin. 1994. “Stripping the Sea’s Life.” Boston Sunday Globe, April 17.


Preston, Garry L. 1997. Review of Fishery Management Issues and Regimes in the PacificIslands Region. Apia, Samoa: Strategic Action Programme for InternationalWaters of the Pacific Islands Region.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 1998. Pacific Island Populations. Noumea: SPC.

Sheppard, Charles, ed. 2000. Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. 3vols. Oxford: Pergamon.

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 1998. Changing Climate and SeaLevels Affect Pacific Countries. Apia, Samoa: SPREP.

———. 1998. Strategic Action Programme for International Waters of the Pacific IslandsRegion. Apia, Samoa: SPREP.

———. 2002. Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region,2003–2007. Apia, Samoa: SPREP.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Global Environment Outlook 2000. London:Earthscan.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1997. Fisheries and Aquaculture in the SouthPacific: Situation and Outlook in 1996. Rome: FAO.

———. 2002. State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002. Rome: FAO.

Wachenfield, D. R., J. K. Oliver, and J. I. Morrissey. 1998. State of the Great Barrier ReefWorld Heritage Area 1998. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority.

Weber, Peter. 1993. Abandoned Seas: Reversing the Decline of the Oceans. World WatchPaper No. 116. Washington, DC: World Watch Institute.

———. 1994. Net Loss: Fish, Jobs, and the Marine Environment. World Watch PaperNo. 120. Washington, DC: World Watch Institute.

Whitty, Julia. 2001. “Shoals of Time.” Harper’s Magazine, January.

Wilkinson, Clive, ed. 2000. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2000. Townsville: Aus-tralian Institute of Marine Science.

Woodard, Colin. 2000. Ocean’s End: Travels through Endangered Seas. New York: Basic.

World Resources Institute. 2000. World Resources 2000–2001, People and Ecosystems:The Fraying Web of Life. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

World Wide Fund for Nature. 2001. Great Barrier Reef Pollution Report Card. WWF.

Young, Ann. 2000. Environmental Change in Australia since 1788. 2d ed. SouthMelbourne: Oxford University Press.

Zann, Leon P., ed. 1995. Our Sea, Our Future: State of the Marine Environment Report forAustralia. Canberra: Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.

———. 1996. The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: TechnicalSummary. Canberra: Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.


8

Energy and Transportation

Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of Oceania—twenty-two nations andterritories sprawled across a 30-million-square-kilometer (11.6-million-

square-mile) section of the southern Pacific Ocean—have exhibited in-creased interest in pursuing renewable energy technologies over the past twodecades. But while New Zealand and, to a lesser degree, Australia have madesome progress in increasing their energy consumption levels from hydroelec-tric, wind, sun, and other renewable energy sources, the region’s energy infra-structure—including burgeoning transport systems in Australia and NewZealand—and its economic prosperity remain heavily dependent on coal andoil, fossil fuels that have been blamed for degrading wildlife habitat, damag-ing biodiversity, compromising human health, and contributing to global cli-mate change.

Energy Use and Its Impact on the EnvironmentHumankind’s ability to harness energy to meet its basic needs and socioeco-nomic aspirations is an essential component of today’s modern world.Indeed, energy is the foundation upon which modern industrial civilizationsfrom the United States to Europe to Australia have been built, and the manip-ulation of energy—whether it comes from wood, hydroelectric installations,nuclear facilities, natural gas, oil, coal, or renewables—continues to providepeople around the world with the capacity to keep their families warm and fedand able to pursue their livelihoods.

However, while energy use is enormously beneficial to individuals, com-munities, and nations, the pursuit and consumption of energy is not withoutits drawbacks, especially in ecological terms. Energy use has a host of directand indirect impacts on the environment. “The indirect impacts arise from

167

the things that plentiful energy enables us to do, such as driving to orthrough sensitive ecosystems (creating vehicle and visitor impacts in forestsand sand dunes), modifying landscapes, clearing forests and draining wet-lands (made easier by heavy machinery), generating noise (from machineryand sound equipment), and generating hazardous wastes (from manufactur-ing processes),” observed the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment.“Other indirect impacts arise from the mining, manufacture and energy usethat go into constructing power stations, turbines, generators and associatedenergy-extraction technology” (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment,1997). Most forms of energy use—and certainly the ones that dominatetoday’s energy picture—also have significant direct impacts on the environ-ment. These impacts accumulate at all stages of the energy use cycle—extrac-tion, storage, transport, and consumption. Specific environmental problemsassociated with the use of energy include degradation of the atmosphere(most notably through emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for globalclimate change), air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, and habitat al-teration and destruction (and associated diminishment of biodiversity), allof which influence the health and welfare of human communities.

Continued heavy dependence on fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—hasemerged as a source of particular concern in the past half-century. These energysources underpin much of the global economy today, but apprehensions aboutdwindling fossil fuel supplies and the ecological impact of locating, extracting,transporting, and consuming these resources are considerable. For example,extraction and transport of coal—Australia’s main energy source—has beenimplicated in the degradation and erosion of fragile soils; the fragmentationand destruction of species-rich habitats such as forests and meadowlands; andthe contamination of rivers, streams, and aquifers (through wastewater dis-charges, toxic tailings, and landscape changes). At the consumption end, mean-while, the consequences of coal consumption include heavy emissions of airpollutants and carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping “greenhouse gas” re-sponsible for global climate change, and discharges of warm, chemical-lacedwastewater that undermine the ecological integrity of watersheds.

Fossil fuel extraction and delivery operations have also come under fire fortheir impact on the world’s air, land, and water resources. Critics in the envi-ronmental and scientific communities contend that drilling rigs, roadways,pipelines, and other infrastructure used to tap and deliver oil and gas carve upwildlife habitat, contaminate fragile rivers and aquifers with industrial pollu-tants, and diminish the wilderness character of undeveloped areas. And whilenatural gas consumption does not degrade surrounding air or water, airborneemissions from automobiles and other oil-dependent sectors continue to gen-erate air pollutants and greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.


Technological innovations and public policy adjustments have enabled de-veloped nations to blunt the ecological impact of fossil fuel use in some ways,such as reducing emissions of air pollutants from coal-fired power plants andautomobiles. But many environmentalists, scientists, policy-makers, andcommunity leaders believe that preservation of the earth’s land, water, and airresources will require a much greater investment in and dedication to renew-able energy technology.

Australia Remains Heavily Dependent on Coal and Oil

Energy Use in AustraliaAustralia is the only country in the South Pacific/Oceania region with interna-tionally significant reserves of fossil fuels. In 2001, Australia had 8.3 percent ofthe world’s proved coal reserves (approximately 82 billion tons). No other na-tion in Oceania had more than 0.1 percent of the planet’s coal reserves (BP,2002). Australia’s consumption of coal rose steadily throughout the 1990s,jumping by 10 million tons of oil equivalent from 1991 to 2001, when it con-sumed 47.6 million tons of oil equivalent (about 2.1 percent of the worldtotal) (ibid.). But the presence of extensive coal beds and low population den-sities have nonetheless enabled the country to maintain its station as theworld’s largest exporter of coal, with most shipments delivered to rapidlygrowing economies in Southeast Asia.

In terms of oil, Australia has 3.5 thousand million barrels in proved oil re-serves, approximately 0.3 percent of the global total. In 2001 the country

Energy and Transportation 169

Oil47.3%

Coal18.8%

Other Renewables2

6.5%

Electricity26.8%

Geothermal Direct Use

2.8%Gas1

7.8%

Figure 8.1 Total Consumer Energy by Fuel in New Zealand, 2001

SOURCE: UN Food and Agriculture Organization

NOTES: 1. Excludes cogeneration. 2. Includes direct use of biogas, industrial waste, and wood.

consumed 845 thousand barrels (38.1 million tons of oil), about 1 percent ofworldwide consumption. Australia also has about 90 trillion cubic feet ofproved natural gas reserves, approximately 1.6 percent of global reserves. Anet importer of natural gas, Australia consumed 22.5 billion cubic meters ofnatural gas in 2001, 6 percent of the world total. In terms of hydroelectricpower, Australia accounted for only 0.7 percent of world consumption in2001 (3.9 million tons of oil equivalent) (ibid.).

Australia currently has no nuclear power facilities in operation. Australiaflirted with developing a nuclear power program in the late 1960s and early1970s, but it was eventually abandoned; Australian authorities have voiced of-ficial opposition to nuclear energy ever since. Public opposition to nuclearpower is strong as well, but not universal. Proponents of nuclear energy haveurged Australian policy-makers and communities to reconsider their utility asan energy source. They note that the technology could reduce Australia’sheavy dependence on coal-fired electricity plants, which have contributed tothe country’s status as the second biggest air polluter on the planet by percapita measurement. Antinuclear conservation organizations, though, rejectclaims that nuclear energy is an appropriate response to air pollution and cli-mate change problems created by consumption of coal and other fossil fuels.They charge that waste disposal and security concerns associated with nuclear


Coal mining operation in Ravensworth, Australia. COREL

energy programs would place the environment and human communities intoo much jeopardy.

All told, coal accounts for about 70 percent of Australia’s total energy pro-duction, with another 27 percent roughly divided between oil and natural gasand the remaining 3 percent generated by hydroelectric facilities and renew-able energy sources. Coal is also the single greatest energy source consumed inAustralia, accounting for 40 to 45 percent of total consumption in recent years.Oil (and natural gas liquid) provides another 35 percent of Australia’s total en-ergy consumption, with most of the consumption taking place in the gasoline-hungry transport sector. Natural gas satisfies another 15 to 20 percent ofAustralia’s total energy needs, while “green” power (renewables) accounts forroughly 6 percent of annual energy consumption. Overall, Australia’s largecoal industry enables it to export nearly five times as much energy as it im-ports (International Energy Agency, 2002). In addition, some experts forecastthat Australian coal exports could double by 2015 as industrial and householddemand for electricity surges in Asian nations that are experiencing rapid in-creases in population and economic growth. This is an alarming scenario tosupporters of the Kyoto Protocol, a UN-sponsored agreement designed to re-duce emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global climate change.Australia, however, has refused to ratify Kyoto and is instead urging a coursethat emphasizes voluntary measures to reduce emissions.

Trends in Energy ConsumptionNot surprisingly, Australia’s steadily growing population and robust eco-nomic development have produced increases in energy consumption. But ac-cording to many indicators, energy consumption across Australia is actuallyoutpacing population and economic growth rates. For example, end-use con-sumption of energy by Australia’s residential sector surged by 60 percent from1975 to 1999, even though the country posted an overall population increaseof only 35 percent during that period (Australian State of the EnvironmentCommittee, 2001). Today, Australia ranks among the world leaders in energyuse per capita. Moreover, “‘[b]usiness as usual’ projections indicate that thisgrowth is expected to continue unless significant policy and practice changesoccur. Over the past 25 years, renewable energy consumption has increased byonly 50 percent, much less than the growth in fossil fuel use” (ibid.).

One factor in Australia’s high per capita energy consumption is the coun-try’s energy pricing structure. The cost of gasoline and electricity in Australiais lower than in most other parts of the world. In fact, from 1997 to 1999,Australia was the only country in which electricity prices declined (EnergyEfficiency and Conservation Authority, 2001). These low energy prices give


Australian households and industries only limited economic incentive to con-serve or improve energy consumption efficiency. Indeed, the average Aus-tralian household spends only 3 percent of its budget on energy (AustralianState of the Environment Committee, 2001).

The industry and transport sectors (both private and commercial) accountfor most (85 percent) of Australia’s total energy consumption, and currentpopulation, demographic, and economic trends suggest that demand for en-ergy in these areas will continue to rise. Energy consumption by Australianhouseholds (excluding transportation) amounts to less than 15 percent of thecountry’s total, though it should be noted that much of the energy used by in-dustry and commercial sectors is consumed for the purpose of providinggoods and services for individuals and families. That caveat aside, householdenergy use per capita has actually risen at a slower rate than other sectors—15percent from 1975 to 1999—despite increased use of appliances, growing“quality of life” demands, and declining household size (declining householdsize tends to increase energy use per capita because each home has many ap-pliances and heats a dwelling, regardless of the number of people living there)(ibid.). Analysts note that energy use in the residential sector would be muchhigher were it not for the introduction of various energy-efficiency programsspecifically targeted at residential users, such as those governing the sale anduse of major appliances.

Australia has declared a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) thatrequires electricity suppliers to produce an additional 2 percent of their elec-tricity from renewable sources—excluding hydropower—by 2010. If that goalis reached, this added renewable energy capacity will be able to provide for theresidential electricity needs of 4 million people, about 20 percent of the coun-try’s current population. The MRET, coupled with various subsidies andother schemes to encourage investment in renewables, reflects a widely heldbelief that “green” energy will play an increasingly important role in thetwenty-first century. But in late 2002, Australia’s federal government an-nounced its intention to scrap funding for the Australian Centre for Renew-able Energy (ACRE), a major cog in research and development in solar andfuel cell technologies, while at the same time granting almost $70 million to amajor mining company engaged in research on “geo-sequestration,” a tech-nology that aims to store carbon dioxide underground. Around the sametime, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) called for the abolish-ment of the MRET, even though it is the commonwealth’s only mandatorygreenhouse pollution policy and the centerpiece of national efforts to encour-age investment in renewable technologies. COAG recommended replacingthe MRET program with a national emissions trading scheme. A review of the


MRET legislation is scheduled to take place in 2003. Opponents hope to kill itoutright; advocates are hoping to further bolster it by increasing the targetedrenewable energy goal from 2 percent to 5 or even 10 percent.

“Clearly, the projected trends of ongoing growth in energy use from fossilfuels are inconsistent with the achievement of Australia’s environmentalgoals,” acknowledged one major commonwealth-sponsored study (ibid.). Butwithin Australia, opinions vary about the most appropriate path to take in re-ducing fossil fuel dependence. Members of the environmental communityhave urged the implementation of an assortment of measures to reduce fossilfuel energy use, from new efficiency programs to changes in pricing structure.But their overarching contention is that Australia must significantly boost theamount of energy it generates from renewable sources. “Australia is a sun-burnt country that is also windswept and girt by sea, and therefore has hugepotential sources of renewable energy,” declared the environmental report AContinent in Reverse, sponsored by a consortium of sixteen environmentalgroups (Christoff, 2002). In recent years, though, the commonwealth has em-phasized efficiency gains over reductions in fossil fuel dependence as the mostappropriate course of action. “Although there is scope to reduce energy lossesin the energy supply system, and to switch to energy sources with lower envi-ronmental impacts, more efficient use of energy at the point of consumption


South Africa

Australia

Canada

Finland

Korea

United Kingdom

Spain

France

Austria

Germany

Denmark

Japan

Italy

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Cents/kiloWatt Hour

Figure 8.2 Residential Electricity Prices in Australia and Selected Countries,January 1999

SOURCE: Electricity Supply Association of Australia

is often the most cost-effective means of reducing environmental impacts ofenergy. For example, buying a more energy-efficient refrigerator can cut en-ergy use for food storage by 30 percent or more. This not only cuts the house-hold’s energy bill, but also allows savings to be made throughout the energysupply chain, by reducing the energy supply system capacity required and theamount of coal burned to generate electricity” (Australian State of theEnvironment Committee, 2001).

Australia’s Swelling Transportation SectorAustralia’s transport sector has undergone tremendous growth in the lasthalf-century, as economic opportunity and population increases have pro-duced historic highs in the number of automobiles, trucks, ships, and planescrisscrossing its lands and generated high demand for transportation infra-structure (ranging from parking lots and roads to airports and harbors).

Major transportation arteries link the country’s burgeoning metropolitanareas concentrated along the southern and eastern coastlines, and Australia’srailroad yards, harbors, and airports all bustle with commercial activity.

Not surprisingly, the fuel needs of the transport sector (both individual andcommercial) account for a significant amount of Australia’s total energy con-sumption—40 percent or so in recent years (Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, 2002). Road transport alone is responsiblefor about 30 percent of Australia’s energy consumption annually. In addition,road transport may very well account for a greater share of Australia’s overallenergy consumption in coming decades, because of very high rates of carownership, heavy investment in commercial truck transport systems, andever-growing reliance on private transport (rather than public transit sys-tems) to reach workplaces, grocery stores and shops, and recreational destina-tions that are growing ever more distant from one another because of thegrowth in metropolitan boundaries. In the late 1990s, the average Australianroad vehicle traveled nearly 15,000 kilometers (9,300 miles) a year, with pas-senger vehicles (cars, trucks, and motorcycles) accounting for nearly 80 oftotal travel. Nearly one-quarter of all mileage generated by passenger vehicleswas for commuting purposes, a reflection of the increasing distances that sep-arate home and workplace across the continent (Australian Bureau ofStatistics, 2000).

This dynamic of increased motor vehicle numbers on the road and growingtravel distances are having a host of impacts on Australian quality of life. Thewidespread availability of cars and improvements in road networks providecommunities with increased mobility, which in turn enables individuals andfamilies to access a wide array of community offerings, including lucrative


employment opportunities far from home, access to markets for business, andaccess to a cornucopia of social, recreational, shopping, and personal services.But there are also negative impacts from increased motor travel in both thesocial and environmental realms. In Melbourne, Sydney, and other cities, traf-fic congestion is a problem that seems to worsen by the week. Traffic slow-downs and gridlock not only irk commuters but also impose significant costson business productivity and efficiency and exacerbate the road sector’s emis-sions of chemicals that degrade air quality and contribute to climate change.Indeed, from an environmental perspective, congestion is a major contributorto vehicle emissions. Fuel consumption per vehicle under congested trafficconditions is approximately twice that registered under noncongested condi-tions. Therefore, congestion has the potential to double the output of green-house gas emissions from a stream of vehicle traffic (Australian Bureau ofStatistics, 2001).

At this point, the cost of gasoline in Australia is relatively low by interna-tional standards. Only the United States and Canada have posted lower gaso-line prices in recent years. This abundance of comparatively inexpensivegasoline has provided Australians with little financial incentive to curb theirtravel, and it remains an obstacle to new investment in public transport,which remains largely limited to inner-city cores.

New Zealand Relies on Renewable/Nonrenewable Mix

New Zealand’s Energy SectorNew Zealand harnesses energy from a myriad of sources. It remains depend-ent on nonrenewables for about two-thirds of the nation’s energy supply. Oilprovides approximately one-third of its total primary energy supply, becauseof the gasoline needs of its transport sector. Imported oil accounts for 30 per-cent of New Zealand’s total energy supply, while indigenous oil accounts forless than 3 percent of the nation’s energy supply (Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, 2003). Reliance on natural gas, meanwhile, has increased overthe past two decades as a result of the discovery of new reserves and the beliefthat it has fewer environmental drawbacks than oil or coal. It currently ac-counts for less than 30 percent of energy use, but analysts believe that its shareof the country’s energy market could increase in coming years. Coal, mean-while, accounts for only about 7 percent of the country’s energy.

New Zealand supplements its nonrenewable energy sources with a verystrong hydroelectric scheme. Energy generated from the hydroelectric facili-ties that gird its numerous rivers accounts for around 20 to 25 percent of the


country’s energy production and consumption annually, including 70 to 80percent of its total electricity (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority,2001), depending on water supplies and electricity demand. Indeed, NewZealand has used its wealth of rivers and streams to surpass neighboringAustralia in the sheer amount of energy derived from hydropower, and it ac-counts for about 0.8 percent of world hydropower consumption (5 milliontons of oil equivalent) (BP, 2002). Other energy sources include geothermalsteam, firewood, solar heating, and wind power. Nuclear energy is not utilizedin New Zealand, and prospects for investment in this technology in the futureare dim, given widespread popular skepticism about its safety and its impacton the environment.

New Zealand’s investments in geothermal energy and hydroelectric systemshave enabled it to pull about one-third of its total energy supply from renew-able sources (water in both of these cases). But environmentalists, scientists,and policy-makers contend that renewable energy could become an even big-ger contributor in the future, if New Zealand is willing to invest in other greenenergy options, including wind power, biofuels, solar power, and ocean tidesand waves (the energy of which could be harnessed by turbine systems similarto those in place at hydro power stations) (New Zealand Ministry for theEnvironment, 2001).

Energy consumption has increased across the board in New Zealand in re-cent years, with residential, commercial, transport, agricultural, and indus-trial sectors all posting spikes in their energy requirements. But the greatestgrowth since 1980 has been in the transport sector, which now accounts for 35to 40 percent of all energy used. By contrast, industry, residential, and com-mercial sectors report steadily rising energy needs, but the rate of growthpales beside that of the fast-expanding transport sector, so industry, residen-tial, and commercial sectors all account for slightly smaller shares of NewZealand’s total energy consumption than in past decades (New ZealandMinistry for the Environment, 1997). “Overall New Zealand’s energy con-sumption has increased markedly since the 1950s,” admitted one governmentreport. “From the early 1980s to the early 1990s it climbed more steeply thanever before. Although the population rose by only 17 percent between 1974and 1995, energy consumption increased by 53 percent” as a result of new in-vestment in the smelting, petrochemicals, and steel-making industries (ibid.).

Investing in Green Sources of PowerIn the last quarter-century, New Zealand has implemented a number of re-forms and initiatives in the energy sector. In the late 1980s the federal govern-ment consciously decided to divest itself of many direct responsibilities in the


energy sector. In subsequent years it reduced its involvement by transferringenergy generation, transmission, and exploration efforts to the private sector,by deregulating energy markets, and by introducing a royalties regime to en-courage international investment in oil and gas exploration. Under these re-forms, much of the responsibility for regulating activities in the energyindustry devolved to local authorities who assumed primary responsibility forenforcing pertinent laws and regulations and ensuring that energy producersavoid, mitigate, or remedy any and all environmental impacts associated withexploration, transport, and production activities (ibid.).

The federal government, meanwhile, remains heavily involved in efforts torealize greater energy efficiencies in New Zealand homes and businesses. “Atthe consumer end, a considerable amount of our daily energy consumption iswasteful or plain unnecessary,” declared the Ministry for the Environment.“This applies to both businesses and domestic households. Electricity, for ex-ample, however generated, is a relatively expensive form of energy, in moneyand in natural resources. Minimizing its use is therefore a good way of savingcosts and the environment. Local power supply authorities are now offeringenergy efficiency advice and services. . . . Some large industrial sites are nowinstalling co-generation power plants to harness energy from their waste ma-terials while others are trying to make savings in other ways, such as makinggreater use of insulation, natural light, or longlife fluorescent bulbs” (ibid.).Toward this goal of greater energy efficiency, New Zealand has launched a va-riety of programs under the Ministry for the Environment’s Cleaner Prod-uction Programme and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, asmall government agency created in 1992 with a clear mandate to find waysfor New Zealanders to use energy in a more sustainable manner (EnergyEfficiency and Conservation Authority, 2002).

New Zealand acknowledges that its energy needs will almost certainly in-crease in the coming decades, given current trends in population growth, eco-nomic activity, and living standards. With this in mind, it remains interestedin discovering and developing new oil and gas fields, introducing additionaldams and geothermal stations, and pursuing advantageous trade agreementsfor the import of oil, natural gas, and other nonrenewables.

But New Zealand is also engaged in a concerted effort to bolster its energysecurity and reduce environmental problems associated with other types ofenergy through the promotion of renewable energy sources. Toward thisend, the country recently passed the Energy Efficiency and ConservationAct (EECA) 2000, a landmark piece of legislation with a two-pronged em-phasis on (1) promoting energy efficiency and energy conservation, and (2)moving New Zealand toward a sustainable energy future through increased


investment in renewable energy systems and technologies. One year later,the country announced the launch of its National Energy Efficiency andConservation Strategy, the creation of which was mandated by the EECA2000 legislation. “[It] dominates the recent energy management landscape,”declared the EECA. “New Zealand was not the first nation to adopt such acomprehensive template for energy management, but we believe that we arebetter placed than many other nations when it comes to producing the posi-tive results we seek.” The Strategy includes fifty-seven specific targets/goalsinfluencing all sectors of New Zealand society, from energy generators, im-porters, wholesalers, and retailers to government agencies, local authorities,community groups, and end-users (both business and residential) with aneye toward increasing energy efficiency in all sectors and expanding the roleof renewable energy in meeting the nation’s energy needs (ibid.).

Studies undertaken by the New Zealand government have concluded thatrenewables with the greatest promise are small hydroelectric installations, bio-fuels, and wind power. The government has identified more than 170 riversites across the North and South Islands that could be outfitted with weirs ordams used by small power stations, with the bulk of these sites located in themore heavily populated North Island. Support for further investment in hy-droelectric power, however, is complicated by debate over the environmentaladvantages and drawbacks of hydroelectricity. In earlier decades, harnessingthe might of New Zealand’s wild rivers to provide “clean energy”—energy thatdoes not pollute the air with greenhouse gases and other pollutants generatedby fossil fuel consumption—was widely popular and regarded as environmen-tally benign. But the environmental impact of existing and proposed new hy-droelectric plants can be significant. For example, dams in New Zealand (andelsewhere) have been faulted for disrupting natural river behavior, destroyingriverine ecosystems, and flooding species-rich upstream habitat.

New Zealand may ultimately display greater enthusiasm for biofuel technol-ogy and wind power. It has been estimated that if New Zealand converted 1million hectares of pasture land to plantations of fuel crops, the annual energyyield could equal 85 percent of the nation’s current primary energy supply.Similarly, studies indicate that wind farms could generate up to 30 percent ofthe country’s current electricity consumption if all potential sites were devel-oped (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and Centre for AdvancedEngineering, 1996; New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 1997).

Certainly, the country is ideally situated geographically to reap the benefitsof wind power, which produces no greenhouse gases or other pollutants.Strong winds and sea breezes are a daily fact of life across New Zealand, inas-


much as the country lies squarely in the path of the southern hemisphere’sprevailing northwesterly winds. In recent years, scientists have identified atleast a dozen sites distributed across the North and South Islands that are well-suited for wind farms. In addition, wind power is comparatively inexpensiveto install because farms do not require major alterations of landscape for con-struction purposes. This gives wind farms considerable flexibility in size andscope, and perhaps even more important, leaves only a faint—and tempo-rary—ecological footprint on the land. Only 1 percent of the land on which awind farm is built is actually taken up by the turbines, leaving the remaining99 percent of land area available for farming and other economic activities.Moreover, wind farms do not leave behind mines, dams, wells, and other in-frastructure, unlike operations to capture conventional fossil fuels. Instead,windmills can be dismantled without leaving major scars on the landscape(Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and Centre for AdvancedEngineering, 1996). The chief environmental drawback associated with windfarms is bird mortality, especially in areas where birds congregate or along mi-gratory corridors. Otherwise, the main complaints leveled against wind powerare aesthetic ones. Noise levels from turbines can be high in the immediatevicinity, and some people do not like to see the natural splendor of the land-scape marred by rows of towering windmills trailing off to the horizon.

Others signs of heightened commitment to more sustainable energy useare proliferating across New Zealand as well. For instance, in 2001 droughtconditions across large parts of New Zealand sparked water shortages thatthreatened some hydroelectric operations. But a government-sponsoredconservation program helped city and rural dwellers alike weather the short-fall. “Two positives emerged from the experience. Many householders andcompanies came to rapidly understand the value of energy efficiency andconservation measures. A potential loss of supply put the issue into sharpfocus. Also the electricity industry realised it was ill-prepared for a dry sea-son, and has since acted to prepare contingency plans” (Energy Efficiencyand Conservation Authority, 2002). In 2002, meanwhile, New Zealandpassed minimum energy performance standards and mandatory labelingschemes for a variety of domestic appliances, then followed that up with aproposal to implement a carbon tax targeted at fossil fuel consumption.Most recently, in early 2003, the New Zealand government announced that itwill support the development of two proposed wind farms by giving themKyoto Protocol climate change “carbon” credits for the clean energy they willproduce. “Electricity from these wind farms would avoid some gas or coal-fired generation, with its associated greenhouse gas emissions,” explained


Energy Minister Pete Hodgson. “That is clearly in New Zealand’s interestsbut the initial costs mean that the wind farms would probably not proceedwithout the credits the government is offering.” Hodgson said that the windfarms could deliver emission reductions of up to 1 million tons of carbondioxide over the protocol’s first commitment period of 2008–2012.

Transport Sector Presents ChallengesAt the beginning of the twenty-first century, New Zealand maintained ap-proximately 82,000 kilometers of local roads and another 10,700 kilometers ofstate highways. These arteries of commerce and recreation are supplementedby a 4,000-kilometer (2,500-mile) rail network, thirteen commercial ports,and twenty-seven airports (including seven international airports). Thismodern transportation system has brought New Zealand’s citizenry myriadsocioeconomic benefits, but many of its elements—from roadways and othertransportation infrastructure to the vehicles themselves—can have adverse ef-fects for human health and the environment. Road systems contribute to thefragmentation or outright elimination of species-rich habitat, and they pro-vide corridors for the spread of invasive pests and weeds into fragile naturalareas. Emissions generated by cars, trucks, boats, locomotives, and airplanespollute the air and water, and disposal of the 30 million liters of used oil gen-erated every year is a vexing problem. In fact, each year, domestic transportcontributes more than 40 percent of New Zealand’s total carbon dioxideemissions and accounts for 40 percent of the country’s total energy use (NewZealand Ministry for the Environment. “Transport.” n.d.).

The challenge of reining in transportation’s impact on the environment islikely to become even more daunting in the coming years. Transport energydemand grew at an average rate of 3.6 percent annually from 1991 to 2000,and there are few indications that the sector’s appetite for fuel has been slaked.In addition, New Zealand’s national government currently invests more than$1.6 billion annually in land transport alone, primarily through its NationalLand Transport Fund. However, pressures to relieve congestion in its largestcities could spur additional expenditures in new roads leading into areas thathave thus far been spared development. New Zealand’s growing attraction asan international tourism destination (international visitor arrivals have risenfrom 530,000 in 1985 to more than 2 million annually) has also producedhigher emissions from ships and airplanes, and has been cited as a factor in in-creased traffic congestion in the country’s larger cities.

In addition, New Zealand’s motor vehicle fleet—already one of the largestin the world per capita—continues to grow. From 1990 to 1999, the number


of registered private motor vehicles in the country jumped 26 percent, andfrom 2000 to 2015, the number of motor vehicles is expected to swell from 2.5million to 3.1 million (ibid.). By contrast, public transit systems remainlargely an afterthought in the New Zealand transport landscape. In the late1990s only 2.2 percent of travel in New Zealand was made by bus and only0.25 percent by rail.

Given these patterns, the environmental community and other interestedconstituencies have urged policy-makers to increase their investment in alter-native fuels and public transit. Citing the success of urban rail systems in Auck-land and Wellington, and the popularity of commuter ferry services inAuckland (3.6 million passengers a year), these advocates assert that increasedfunding for maintenance, expansion, and other customer service improve-ments would make mass transit options—whether bus, rail, or ferry—muchmore attractive to commuters, tourists, and shoppers. But this vision of masstransit as a more visible and vibrant part of the country’s social and economiclandscape can not be realized without the support of the public. And thus far,most New Zealanders have shown little inclination to park their automobiles,trucks, and motorcycles in favor of a bus or ferry, even though they have a


This wind turbine generator supplies power to Wellington, New Zealand. PAUL A. SOUDERS/CORBIS

deserved international reputation as environmentally enlightened citizens insuch realms as habitat protection and biodiversity conservation.

Oceania Relies on Outside Sources for EnergyMost Pacific Island Countries (PICs) do not produce any oil or natural gasand are thus dependent on imports of fuel for most of their energy needs.These imports are supplemented, especially in rural households, with woodthat is used for basic heating and cooking purposes. A few states have river re-sources that could enable them to generate hydroelectric power, but thus faronly Fiji and Papua New Guinea have made these types of investments.

Energy consumption among all the South Pacific states and territories isquite low by international standards, both in terms of total consumption andper capita consumption. For example, per capita energy use in the UnitedStates in the 1990s was approximately thirty-five times greater than in PapuaNew Guinea and more than nineteen times that of Fiji. Energy efficiency inthe region is also low, as states and territories composed of multiple inhabitedislands and atolls located many miles apart struggle to disperse energy re-sources to individual communities in a cost-effective manner.

Given the archipelago character of many states and territories in this regionof the world—and the extremely small land area of most PICs—shipping net-works understandably reign as the dominant element in most regional trans-port sectors. Indeed, many Pacific Island states maintain well-established andextensive systems for marine transport of cargo and passengers to and fromthe region’s numerous inhabited islands. Among those PICs that have air-ports, they are almost invariably located in the same city as the country’s mostcommercially important port. Fiji is the lone exception to this rule of thumb.

Many observers have urged Oceania to reduce its reliance on imports of oiland other nonrenewable fuels by developing green energy schemes. After all,Pacific Island states have extremely limited budgetary resources, and whenthey shoulder the financial burden of transporting energy resources to theirshores, even less money is left for already inadequate health and educationprograms. In addition, dependence on foreign oil and biomass diminishes thequality of the region’s air and water resources and triggers localized degrada-tion of forest resources around settlements. Investment in renewables, on theother hand, could produce benefits in job creation, improved energy security,and more money for health and education programs, as well as reducing thestrain on water and land resources upon which many Pacific Islanders con-tinue to depend for their subsistence livelihoods. “It is an exasperating pic-ture, particularly when the alternative is so attractive,” admitted one analysis


(UN Development Programme, 1996). But if Oceania is to make progress inharnessing its wealth of wind and sun resources for energy, major regulatoryand financial reforms will have to be implemented and community involve-ment and support will need to be nurtured.

Sources:Australian Bureau of Resource Economics. 1999. Getting Energy and Greenhouse Gases

into Perspective. Canberra: ABARE.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1997. Australian Transport and the Environment. Can-berra: ABS.

———. 2000. Survey of Motor Vehicle Use 2000. Canberra: ABS.

———. 2001. Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends 2001. Canberra: ABS.

———. 2003. Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS. Available at http://www.abs.gov.au(accessed March 2003).


BP. 2002. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2002. London: Group Media andPublications.

Christoff, Peter. 2002. “Australia: A Continent in Reverse.” Report prepared for nine-teen environmental and conservation groups in response to WSSD-AustralianAssessment Report. Australia.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. 2001. National Energy Efficiency andConservation Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Energy Future. Canberra: EECA.

———. 2002. Annual Report of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.Canberra: EECA.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and Centre for Advanced Engineering.1996. New and Emerging Renewable Energy Opportunities in New Zealand.Christchurch: EECA and CAE.

Hopkins, Andrea. 2001. “Australia’s Brush with Nuclear Power ‘Ground Zero.’”PlanetArk, August 7. Available at http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11916 (accessed August 2002).

International Energy Agency. 2002. Energy Balances of Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) Countries, 1999–2000. Paris: IEA.

———. 2002. World Energy Outlook 2002. Paris: IEA.

Ministry of Economic Development. 2003. “Energy Data File 2003.” Wellington.

Krockenberger, Michael. 2002. “The State of Our Environment.” Habitat Australia 30(June).

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. n.d.“Transport.” Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/transport (accessed March 2003).



———. 2001. National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Wellington:Ministry for the Environment.

UN Development Programme. 1996. The State of Human Settlements and Urban-ization in the Pacific Islands. Suva: UNDP.

———. 2000. Energy as a Tool for Sustainable Development for African, Caribbean, andPacific Countries. New York: UNDP.

———. 2000. World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability.New York: UNDP.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Pacific Islands Environment Outlook. Available atwww.unep.org (accessed December 2002).

World Wide Fund for Nature Australia. 2001. Greening the 2001 Agenda: Priority En-vironmental Initiatives for Commonwealth Government 2002–2005. Sydney:WWF-Australia.


9

Air Quality and the Atmosphere

Most people in Oceania enjoy very clean air by international standards. Thehigh air quality in the region—which includes the continent nation of

Australia as well as New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and another twenty-onecountries and territories dispersed across more than 40 million square kilome-ters (15.5 million square miles) of the South Pacific Ocean—rests on severalfactors. One is the region’s geographic isolation, which limits its exposure totransboundary emissions from other countries. Another ingredient inOceania’s high air quality record is its comparatively modest reliance on heavyindustry and manufacturing. Indeed, many Pacific Island states have virtuallyno industrial component, instead relying on agriculture and tourism for theirlivelihoods. Finally, population levels are light, especially in the largest coun-tries—Australia, Papua New Guinea, and New Zealand. As a result of thisblend of mitigating factors, the only places with significant air quality concernsare some major metropolitan areas (limited mostly to Australia) and some lo-calized areas where mining and other industrial activities are concentrated.

But although air quality is very high across most of Oceania, the region isengaged in a grim struggle to come to terms with possible implications ofglobal warming. Leaders and citizens of many Pacific Island states note thatOceania accounts for only a tiny sliver of the planet’s total emissions of green-house gases. But this also means that they have little control over steadily ris-ing emissions generated overseas. Barring a dramatic curtailment of emissionlevels, these gases are forecast to bring about rising sea levels and wreak majorchanges in weather patterns during coming decades. For some nations of theSouth Pacific, their very existence is in doubt if these manifestations of cli-mate change come to pass. Nonetheless, gloomy scenarios of island submer-sion have not convinced neighboring Australia—one of the planet’s largest

185

greenhouse gas producers per capita—to reconsider its opposition to theKyoto Protocol, an international agreement designed to reduce greenhouseemissions by industrialized countries.

Air Pollution in Oceania

Urban Concerns Mar Australia’s Record of High Air Quality Isolated from other industrialized nations by virtue of its location in theSouth Pacific, Australia receives only minimal concentrations of air pollutantsfrom other nations. This has spared the nation from acid rain—which haswreaked significant damage on forests and lakes in North America andEurope—and other common manifestations of transboundary pollution. Inaddition, large swaths of the Australian countryside experience little or no au-tomobile use or industrial activity. Air quality in these areas is often excep-tional by international standards, though heavy brushfires and high rates ofwind erosion periodically reduce quality in some rural settings. But whilemuch of the continent is free of air quality problems, those areas that have thegreatest concentrations of people—the fast-growing cities and suburbs ofAustralia’s southern and eastern quadrants—also have the greatest accumula-tions of airborne pollutants. In these metropolitan areas, particulate matterfrom industrial activity and motor vehicles, ground-level ozone created by in-dustrial and automobile emissions, and pollutants associated with indoor ac-tivities (such as cigarette smoking) have all diminished air quality.

Trends regarding some of these air quality issues are encouraging. For exam-ple, incidents in which tropospheric (ground-level) ozone levels have exceededsafety guidelines declined markedly in the 1980s and 1990s in Sydney andMelbourne, the country’s two largest cities. This is a welcome development, forozone in the lower atmosphere acts as a poison, killing trees and other vegeta-tion and damaging the respiratory system of humans and other life forms. Italso has been identified as a greenhouse gas that contributes to global climatechange. But Australia’s progress in using new pollution technologies and emis-sion controls to reduce its volume of “ozone precursors”—substances that in-crease the level of ozone and associated smog—may be jeopardized by steadilyrising rates of automobile and truck use and ownership. “It is possible that asvehicle usage and numbers continue to rise, the sheer quantity of emissionsmay again lead to ozone episodes,” acknowledged one study (Australian Stateof the Environment Committee, 2001).

Already, cars and trucks are the major emitters of air pollutants in urbanAustralia, contributing more than 75 percent of the country’s carbon monox-


ide emissions and most of the organic compounds (ibid.). Motor vehicles arealso a primary source of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, along with coalconsumption (as in coal-fired power plants) and specific industrial opera-tions (such as oil refineries and fertilizer manufacturing facilities). Both sulfurdioxide and nitrogen dioxide are respiratory irritants that, in sufficiently highconcentrations, also have corrosive properties capable of damaging buildingsand plants alike. Government standards for the presence of these pollutantsare rarely exceeded, even in urban areas, but the health impact of their inter-actions with other air pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone precur-sors, is not completely understood. Studies such as the Melbourne MortalityStudy have indicated that the combined effects of these pollutants can triggerincreased mortality in urban centers (Environmental Protection Authority,Victoria, 2000).

Australia has taken some effective measures to reduce sulfur dioxide pollu-tion in recent years. Once a scourge of its larger cities because of Australia’sheavy—and continuing—reliance on coal for much of its heating and elec-tricity needs, emissions have declined considerably as a result of new practicesin mining operations and power plants. For example, many processing facili-ties began converting sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid instead of releasing itinto the atmosphere. As a result of these and other steps, total emissions ofsulfur dioxide in Australia decreased by almost one-third between 1995 and2000, despite a jump in mineral processing activity (Australian State of theEnvironment Committee, 2001). In addition, Australia’s passage of the Na-tional Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 will further reduce sulfur content indiesel fuel, which is commonly used throughout the country. Still, high levelsof sulfur dioxide persist in some regions with substantial industrial opera-tions, especially those with a heavy mineral extraction or processing compo-nent. For example, highly concentrated mineral processing communities suchas Port Pirie and Mount Isa continue to contain unsafe levels of sulfur dioxidein the air (ibid.). In rural regions of Australia, meanwhile, the paramount airquality issue is management of airborne particulate matter, such as those con-tained in haze, windblown dust (from mining and agricultural activities),agricultural sprays, wood smoke, smoke from bushfires, and mining industryparticle emissions.

Over the past decade, Australia has taken several steps to improve its moni-toring of air quality and address known problems. In 1997 it passed newmeasures designed to substantially reduce emissions of pollutants from carsand trucks (also a focus of the National Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000), andtwo years later it declared its intention to harmonize Australian vehicle emis-sion standards with existing and emerging European standards, which are the

Air Quality and the Atmosphere 187

most stringent in the world. In 1998, meanwhile, the country finalized a set ofnational air quality standards applicable to all states and territories. Advocatesof these uniform standards, codified in the National Environment ProtectionMeasure (NEPM) for ambient air quality, say that they will provide a report-ing framework that will allow scientists and policy-makers to compare airquality across the country. The year 1998 also marked the creation of theNational Pollutant Inventory, a database designed to provide the community,industry, and government with information on the types and amounts ofchemicals being emitted into the environment (ibid.).

New Zealand Air Quality a Source of National PrideThe people of New Zealand have some of the cleanest air on the planet.Whether speaking of remote forested valleys untouched by human develop-ment or the settlements that sprout along the country’s rugged coastlines, airpollution is low when compared with other points of the globe. Some of thefactors contributing to these conditions are providential in nature, such as thecountry’s isolation and exposure to stiff westerly winds that constantly cleanseits valleys and mountain ranges of contaminants before they become too con-centrated. Other factors in New Zealand’s clean air are more prosaic, such asits relatively low human population, its modest and highly regulated indus-trial sector, and its bounty of carbon-storing forests. “The country’s main rev-enues come from outdoor industries such as agriculture, horticulture,forestry, fishing, and tourism,” observed the Ministry for the Environment.“Except for isolated incidents of spray drift (spraying of pesticides on fields inwindy conditions) or controlled burn-offs, air pollution generated by theseindustries [is] generally low and localized. By world standards, then, NewZealand has low concentrations of most urban air pollutants such as smoke,photochemical smog, and sulphur dioxide” (New Zealand Ministry for theEnvironment, The State of New Zealand’s Environment, 1997).

But while it is universally acknowledged that New Zealand’s air has beenspared much of the pollution that bedevils others countries, quantitative as-sessments of the country’s air quality are lacking. Indeed, monitoring activityhas historically been sporadic—and usually prompted by specific perceivedproblems. Simply put, New Zealand’s political leadership and general popula-tion have historically not felt the need to regularly monitor air pollution levelsin the country.

In recent years, however, recognition of the need for improved monitoringis growing. In the 1990s, for example, the country made significant invest-ments in air pollution research for Christchurch and other metropolitan


areas. This research has uncovered significant air quality problems in someurban locations, especially metropolitan “traffic corridors” (Fisher andThompson, 1996). In fact, air quality has emerged as an issue of serious concernin Christchurch, which lies on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island (thecountry is composed of two main islands—North and South Island—and nu-merous smaller islands). Tucked away in a low-lying basin surrounded by theSouthern Alps and high hills, Christchurch is susceptible to wintertime tem-perature inversions, in which a layer of warm air traps cool air—and pollutiongenerated by motor vehicles and domestic fires—in the valley. Other areas ofNew Zealand, including Dunedin and the Hutt Valley, are also vulnerable tothis phenomenon (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, The State ofNew Zealand’s Environment, 1997).

In these localized areas, nationwide trends such as heavy automobile useand frequent wintertime use of open fires and wood burners have had meas-urable ecological consequences. New Zealand’s rate of vehicle ownership isamong the highest in the world, with nearly one car for every two people liv-ing in the country (450 cars per 1,000 people). Trucks and other vehicles fur-ther boost the nation’s motor vehicle ownership rate to about 700 vehiclesper 1,000 people. The world average, by contrast, is about 84 vehicles per1,000 people (World Bank, 1999). Many of these vehicles are older modelsthat fail to meet national and international air quality guidelines for emis-sions of carbon monoxide and other substances. For example, from 1993 to1995, the Canterbury Regional Council undertook an emission testing pro-gram of cars and trucks in Christchurch. Of the more than 40,000 vehiclestested, more than 17,000 (41 percent of the total) failed to meet the pro-gram’s emission guidelines (Kuschel and Fisher, 1996). Another contributingfactor to higher rates of private automobile use and associated increases inemissions from the sector has been the withering of public transport in thecountry. Indeed, the percentage of New Zealanders taking public transporthas declined dramatically since the 1980s. New Zealand has had greater suc-cess in reining in emissions from manufacturing factories, processing facili-ties, and other components of its industrial base. Indeed, emissions fromindustry have proven much easier to monitor and control than the diffuseand dispersed emissions from households (the primary site of wintertimewood burning) and vehicles.

Air quality management initiatives in New Zealand over the past thirty yearshave been predicated on two distinct pieces of legislation. The country’s firstmajor pollution control legislation was the 1972 Clean Air Act, which regulatedemissions from a host of industrial and trade processes. But this law was limitedin scope and reach, and the Ministry for the Environment has acknowledged


Pollution from traffic congestion is a growing problem in Sydney, Australia. JOHN VANHASSELT/CORBIS

that while it “may have prevented some situations from getting worse, it cannotbe credited with bringing about the main improvements in air quality whichoccurred during the 1970s and 1980s.” Instead, these gains were in large part theresult of progressive reductions in lead emissions from cars and trucks. In 1991the Clean Air Act was discarded in favor of the mechanisms contained withinthe 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA), which emphasizes sustainablemanagement of New Zealand’s natural resources. Under the RMA, much of theresponsibility for air quality and air pollution abatement has been handeddown to regional authorities (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, TheState of New Zealand’s Environment, 1997).

Air Quality in OceaniaHistorically, air quality in the Pacific Island States that compose Oceania hasbeen perceived as superior to that in most other regions of the world, thougha dearth of monitoring and research activity makes quantification impossible.So-called smokestack industries in most of these countries are nonexistent,and pressure on air quality from motor vehicles has traditionally been of littleconcern because the small size of most of these countries (and the modesteconomic resources of their peoples) precluded the creation of significantroadway infrastructure or high rates of motor vehicle ownership. Finally, fewparts of the South Pacific are heavily urbanized, although levels of migrationto towns and cities have risen over the past two decades.

Nonetheless, air quality has been compromised in some parts of somecountries. Clearance of forests and vegetation through controlled fires hasbeen blamed for episodes of localized air pollution, and larger urban areassuch as Apia, Port Moresby, and Suva have experienced forms of developmentthat have eroded air quality, such as poorly regulated industrialization androad-building that has driven increased use of private motor vehicles fortransportation. In most of the countries of Oceania, pollution standards andregulation of emissions from cars, factories, or agricultural activities are min-imal or wholly absent (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Oceania and the Ozone LayerWorldwide concerns about stratospheric ozone loss—the so-called hole in theearth’s ozone layer—have had particular resonance in Oceania. Some coun-tries in the region are relatively close to Antarctica, where ozone loss has beenmost apparent. For example, ozone cover over New Zealand has decreased byan estimated 5 to 7 percent since the mid-1970s, with an accompanying 6 to 9percent rise in cancer-causing forms of ultraviolet radiation (New ZealandMinistry for the Environment, The State of New Zealand’s Environment, 1997).


Researchers note that continued ozone loss would allow higher levels of ultra-violet radiation to reach the earth’s surface, which would in turn trigger higherrates of skin cancer in humans in New Zealand, Australia—already home tothe world’s highest rates of skin cancer—and elsewhere. Other harmful effectsassociated with increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation include declines inplankton, a keystone species in oceans around the world, and damage to natu-ral forests, vegetation, and a host of different food crops. In essence, significantthinning and loss of the ozone layer raised the specter of wrenching changes tothe health and character of ecosystems around the globe.

Fortunately, the international community reacted decisively to the dan-gers of stratospheric ozone loss. When the hole in the ozone layer was de-tected in the 1980s, the world’s governments responded by hammering outthe Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, whichhas now been signed by more than 165 nations. Signatories to this proto-col—which has been periodically revised in response to scientific findings onatmospheric growth rates of ozone-depleting chemicals and on measure-ments of ozone destruction—agreed to eliminate most production of ozone-depleting anthropogenic substances, most notably chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs), which are chlorine-laced chemicals that were common ingredientsin refrigerants and aerosol sprays. In accordance with the protocol, Australia,New Zealand, and other developed countries eliminated their productionand use of almost all CFCs by 1996; as a consequence, global consumption ofCFCs fell from 1.1 million tons to 160,000 tons between 1986 and 1996 (UNEnvironment Programme, 1998). Production and use of CFCs and otherozone-depleting substances by developing countries is scheduled to cease(with a few exceptions) by 2010. In addition, in 1995 more than one hundrednations agreed to end their use of methyl bromide, a pesticide that was an-other significant factor in ozone depletion. As a result of these and othermultilateral environmental agreements, total production and generation ofozone-depleting substances has declined by as much as 90 percent over thepast fifteen years (Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2001).

This reaction to stratospheric ozone loss, which proceeded in the mid-latitudes (Tropic of Capricorn to the Antarctic Circle) at a rate of 2 to 5 per-cent per decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, has had gratifying results.Concentrations of CFCs, methyl bromide, and other ozone-depleting sub-stances—which had boosted concentrations of chlorine in the atmosphereby more than 600 percent above natural levels—are all stabilizing or declin-ing, and the seasonal ozone holes that have rent the atmosphere over theearth’s polar regions in past years appear to be trending downward in size(World Meteorological Organization, 1998). Continued vigilance is necessary,


however, to counter emerging obstacles to recovery such as the internationalblack market trade in CFCs. “The potential impact of stratospheric ozone de-pletion means there is no room for complacency,” commented the UN En-vironment Programme. “[But] the cooperative measures that followed theidentification of the problem remain an outstanding and encouraging exam-ple of the ability of the international community to act in unison in protect-ing the global environment” (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Full recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer is still expected to takedecades, however. Ozone-depleting substances continue to exist in the upperatmosphere, and further increases in health problems related to high expo-sure to ultraviolet radiation have been forecast for the short term, since emis-sions from earlier years are still working their way through the atmosphere. Inaddition, scientists report that incipient global climate change could signifi-cantly delay the healing process, pushing back full recovery for a century ormore (UN Environment Programme, 2000; World Meteorological Organi-zation, 1998).


As evidence of global climate change

accumulates, political leaders in Oceania

have mounted a lobbying effort to

convince the rest of the world to make

major reductions in their consumption

of fossil fuels responsible for the bulk of

greenhouse gases. At the 1998 Kyoto

Climate Summit, for example, President

Kinza Clodumar of the Republic of

Nauru sought to place the global

warming threat to Oceania’s small island

states in starkly moral terms:“We submit,

respectfully, that the willful destruction

of entire countries and cultures with

foreknowledge would represent an

unspeakable crime against humanity.

No nation has the right to place its own

misconstrued national interest before

the physical and cultural survival of

whole countries.The crime is cultural

genocide. It must not be tolerated by

the family of nations.The crime is no less

when it is perpetuated slowly by the

emission of invisible gases. My plea is

not merely an urgent request on behalf

of island nations and cultures; it is also a

heartfelt warning to the entire family of

nations. Small island states provide not

only a moral compass; we are also a

barometer of broader visitations wisely

heeded by all.”

Sources:Clodumar, Kinza. 1998.“Global Warming,

Rising Tides, and Cultural Genocide.”

Earth Island Journal 13 (summer).

Casting Greenhouse Gas Reductions as a Moral Issue

Global Climate Change: The End for Oceania?Airborne pollution has long been recognized as a potentially deadly threat tothe earth’s flora and fauna, including humans. But historically, these impactswere triggered by ingestion of the pollutants contained in emissions fromindustrial processes, motor vehicle operation, fires (both prescribed fires andwildfires), and other sources. More recently, however, the scientific commu-nity has determined that many of these same airborne pollutants are transform-ing the planet’s atmosphere so that it takes on greater insulating properties.This “greenhouse effect,” in which the sun’s heat is trapped in the atmosphereunder a growing blanket of emissions known as “greenhouse gases,” poses apotentially major threat to world ecosystems and the people, animals, andplants that depend on those systems for their survival.

The main source of these gases—which include carbon dioxide, nitrousoxide, and CFCs—is anthropogenic activity, specifically the burning of oil,gas, and coal to operate cars, trucks, airplanes, factories, and power plants.This burning of fossil fuel generates huge quantities of carbon dioxide, themain greenhouse gas. Lesser sources of greenhouse gases include methaneemissions from livestock and landfills, nitrous oxides from agricultural fields,emissions of fluorinated gases from industry, emissions of carbon dioxidefrom volcanic activity, and releases of carbon dioxide from carbon-storingforests subjected to “slash-and-burn” deforestation.

According to the 2,500-member Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), a group operating under the joint sponsorship of the UnitedNations and the World Meteorological Organization, evidence of climatechange attributable to human activities is already proliferating around theplanet, with rapid melting of polar ice caps and record-breaking temperaturesthe most noteworthy manifestations. According to the IPCC, which stands asthe world’s most authoritative source on global warming, nine of the world’sten hottest years in recorded history occurred between 1990 and 2000 (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The ScientificBasis, 2001).

If left unchecked, the earth’s accelerating retention of greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere will fundamentally transform the planet and its naturalecosystems. And while some of these sweeping changes may prove beneficialin certain respects to some regions (by transforming arid and semiarid areasinto more productive farmland, for example), many of the consequences areexpected to be devastating for people, flora, and fauna around the world. Thesingle greatest element in this transformation will be rising temperatures.The IPCC has forecast that the planet will warm by a stunning 1.4 to 5.8 de-


grees Celsius (2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of the twenty-firstcentury without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Probablerepercussions of this warming of the planet include increasingly severe andnumerous storms, altered rain and snowfall patterns that will bring greaterincidence of flooding and drought, inundation of islands and coastal areasfrom rising sea levels (precipitated by melting glaciers and polar ice caps), ex-pansion of malaria and other tropical diseases into previously temperatezones, and possible mass extinctions of species of mammals, birds, reptiles,amphibians, fish, and plants (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Climate Change 2001: Summaries for Policymakers, 2001).

Scientists believe that the severity of many of these changes can be blunted ifcountries take prompt action now. Indeed, the decisive international responseto the stratospheric ozone loss issue has been cited as a model for crafting fu-ture climate policy (Downie, 1995). To date, however, the main internationalresponses to this brewing crisis have been the 1992 UN Framework Con-vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The lat-ter is a UN-brokered agreement that calls on developed nations to reduce theiremissions of greenhouse gases to at least 5 percent below 1990 emissions levelsby 2012. The protocol enters into force when it has been ratified by at leastfifty-five parties to the convention, including developed countries accountingfor at least 55 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. But the futureof the Kyoto Protocol, which even supporters acknowledge is only a first step inaddressing global climate change, is uncertain. The United States, which ranksas the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases, has decided not to ratifythe treaty, citing economic hardship and the exclusion of developing countries.In addition, some nations have experienced great difficulty in reaching emis-sion reduction goals.

In the South Pacific, meanwhile, reactions to the global warming issue havebeen starkly different. Australia and New Zealand have parted ways on Kyoto,with the latter ratifying the protocol in late 2002 and the former joining theUnited States in opposition. And the nations of Oceania? They watch the de-bates over global warming and appropriate responses with foreboding andanxiety, fully cognizant that rising sea levels could submerge part or all oftheir countries under the ocean waves.

Australia and the Global Warming IssueAmong industrialized nations, Australia is the world’s largest emitter ofgreenhouse gases responsible for global warming on a per capita basis. Itsemissions of 27.9 tons of greenhouse gases (in carbon dioxide equivalent) percapita far outstrip per capita emissions from any other country (the next


highest per capita emitter is Canada, at 22.2 tons). In addition, Australia’s percapita emission rate is more than double the average of 12.8 tons for all indus-trialized countries (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2003).

In terms of total emissions of greenhouse gases by volume, Australia ranksfar behind countries such as the United States, which alone accounts for aboutone-quarter of all emissions implicated in global warming. But Australia doesrank seventh in total emissions among industrialized nations, behind only theUnited States, Japan, Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada, andits total emissions are more than that posted by Italy and France, countrieswith three times Australia’s population (UN Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change, 2003).

Australia’s high rate of greenhouse gas generation is directly attributable toits abundant storehouses of coal and other fossil fuels. Indeed, Australia is theplanet’s leading exporter of coal—consumption of which is a major contribu-tor to air pollution and global warming—yet it still possesses enough of thisand other fossil fuels to keep its electricity and gasoline prices among the low-est in the world. Armed with high energy supplies and few pricing incentivesfor resource conservation, Australia has become a profligate consumer, withthe energy sector—power stations and transportation—accounting for almost80 percent of its greenhouse emissions (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001).

Australia has managed to make modest reductions in its per capita emis-sions in recent years. From 1990 to 1999, per capita emissions declined by ap-proximately 3 percent. But this overall decline masked a surge in emissions atthe end of the decade. Australian emissions fell sharply in the early 1990s be-cause of anemic economic conditions that diminished investment in indus-trial activity and land clearing (which reduces capacity to absorb carbon inforests). But Australia emerged from recession in the mid-1990s and since thattime has registered considerable growth in emissions, especially from its en-ergy sectors. Changes to the country’s electricity market in the late 1990s alsoexacerbated this trend, as utilities made greater use of brown coal at the ex-pense of black coal and natural gas (Turton and Hamilton, 2002).

Moreover, environmentalists note that modest gains in per capita emis-sions are of limited comfort since total emissions in Australia continue to rise.The total growth in emissions has been the subject of considerable debate—the Australian government has claimed that it anticipates an 11 percent risefrom 1990 levels in greenhouse gases by 2012, while studies mounted by con-servation and environmental groups contend that the country’s emissions ofgreenhouse gases rose by more than 17 percent during the 1990s alone; theypredict 30 percent growth from 1990 levels by 2012 (Environment Australia,2002; Christoff, 2002). In making its claims, the latter constituency relies on


the government’s own data, such as forecasts that emissions from electricityproduction could rise by more than 40 percent between 1990 and 2010 (Aus-tralian Bureau of Resource Economics, 1999).

Australia has acknowledged that global climate change is a reality, and itclaims that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a priority. But the nationcontinues to export vast quantities of coal to Asia, where air pollution abate-ment technologies are still being introduced. In addition, it has announcedthat it will not ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty aimed at cutting emis-sions of greenhouse gases blamed for global climate change.

To environmentalists, Australia’s spurning of Kyoto symbolized a startlingmetamorphosis in the country’s attitude toward the global warming issue. Inthe early 1990s, Australia was an enthusiastic supporter of the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), one of the major outcomes of the1992 Rio Summit. During this period, the country’s leadership vowed that itwould make all necessary investments of money and other resources to returnnational greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels. Since that time, however, envi-ronmentalists contend that “Australia’s domestic and international stance onthis issue has deteriorated remarkably” (Christoff, 2002).

“Successive national governments (Labor and Coalition) have refused tolegislate clear targets for domestic greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Moresignificantly (at Kyoto), the Howard Government refused to accept anymandatory emissions reduction target in the protocol then under negotia-tion. It argued that even the modest (and ecologically minimal) average targetof 5 percent would be against the national (economic) interest. Australia’spressure on the fragile negotiations, and its threat to break ranks and with-draw altogether, resulted in its being rewarded with a special target—a tar-geted increase in emissions, by 8 percent from 1990 levels, by 2012” (Christoff,1998). Despite this special accommodation, Australia eventually decided toopt out of the treaty, claiming that its implementation would take an unac-ceptable toll on the country’s economy.

During the 1990s, Australia’s commonwealth government did unveil a va-riety of measures ostensibly designed to reduce the continent nation’s green-house emissions. These included the 1992 National Greenhouse ResponseStrategy, the 1995 Greenhouse Challenge Program, and the 1998 NationalGreenhouse Strategy. But all of these programs sought to reduce emissionsthrough voluntary participation, and as one study noted, the country’s emis-sion trends make it clear that “none has had any substantial success in tackl-ing core issues dealing with unrestrained expansion of fossil fuel basedeconomic development” (Christoff, 2002). In July 2002, Australia announcedthe U.S.-Australia Climate Action Partnership with the United States, a scheme


to develop a carbon trading market outside the Kyoto Protocol framework.But critics in the environmental community denounced the partnership,noting that its voluntary framework does not penalize either party if it failsto make quantifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

If forecasts by most members of the scientific community come to pass,global climate change will have an enormous impact on the Australian conti-nent in the twenty-first century. Most of the country will experience warmingof 0.4 to 2.0 degrees Celsius (0.7 to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2030, and by 1.1to 6.0 degrees Celsius (2 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2070. Increased vulnera-bility to drought and severe storm events that trigger floods are also likely,with both trends affecting agriculture, industrial activity, and infrastructure(roadways, buildings). Considerable investments of time, money, and otherresources will likely be necessary to ensure sustainability in these sectors, andsome demographic groups—particularly indigenous peoples in some re-gions—have low institutional capacity and financial resources to adapt(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitig-ation, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, 2001).

In addition, increases in temperature and exposure to droughts and floodswill likely have a transformative effect on the savanna ecosystem of tropicalAustralia, with species composition undergoing considerable change. “Somespecies with restricted climatic niches and which are unable to migrate dueto fragmentation of the landscape, soil differences, or topography could be-come endangered or extinct,” stated the IPCC. Australian ecosystems that areparticularly vulnerable to climate change include coral reefs, arid and semi-arid habitats in southwest and inland Australia, alpine systems (such as theSouthern Alps), and freshwater wetlands in coastal zones. Moreover, morefrequent invasions by tropical pests, weeds, and infectious diseases are likelyresults of changing weather patterns, Finally, sea level rise associated withglobal warming could endanger many developed coastal areas, where Aus-tralia’s population is concentrated. Residential housing, ports, bridges, andbusiness centers could all suffer extensive and permanent damage from landencroachment, coastal erosion, storm surges, and wind damage (AustralianState of the Environment Committee, 2001; Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Impacts, Adaptation, andVulnerability, 2001).

New Zealand and Global WarmingUnlike its continental neighbor to the west, New Zealand has determined thatthe Kyoto Protocol is an appropriate mechanism by which the developedworld can begin addressing global warming. In late 2002, New Zealand for-


mally ratified the Kyoto Protocol, committing itself to a 5 percent reduction inits 1990-level emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012.

New Zealand’s recognition that the country’s “geographical isolation . . .affords no sanctuary” from the threat of global warming is reflected in assess-ments of its own historical emissions performance: “Although New Zealandhas a relatively small population, we, like the people in other developed coun-tries, make a disproportionate contribution to greenhouse gas emissions,” ob-served the Ministry for the Environment. “In 1993, New Zealand’s 3.5 millionpeople represented only 0.06 percent of the world’s population, but our con-tribution to all human-related carbon dioxide emissions was closer to 0.10percent and our per capita share of methane emissions was ten times theglobal average. The reasons for this are emissions from livestock and fossil fueluse” (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, The State of New Zealand’sEnvironment, 1997).

Indeed, New Zealand ranks seventh in the world among industrializedcountries in terms of total per capita greenhouse gas emissions, at 14.4 tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent, which is higher than the 12.8-ton average for all in-dustrialized countries (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2003).Most of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions are carbon dioxide (from carsand trucks, electricity generation, and the petrochemical, steel, and diary in-dustries) and methane (generated by its 50 million sheep and cattle), whichprovide products responsible for about one-third of the country’s total exportearnings. The volume of methane generated in New Zealand declined slightlyduring the 1990s, but emissions of carbon dioxide and several other green-house gases, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, andhydrofluorocarbons, increased during the same time period, pushing overallgreenhouse gas emission levels to historic highs (New Zealand Ministry for theEnvironment, The State of New Zealand’s Environment, 1997).

New Zealand, though, appears determined to meet its Kyoto obligations.One of the major weapons at New Zealand’s disposal in the battle againstglobal warming is its large pavilions of unbroken forest land. At the beginningof the twenty-first century, it was estimated that about half of the country’semissions of carbon dioxide stemming from human activity are absorbed byits forests, which act as a “sink” for carbon. These and other forests around theworld have been formally recognized by the Kyoto Protocol as assets to beconsidered in figuring national emission levels.

The total area of New Zealand under forest cover is on the rise as well, be-cause of forest planting and commercial plantation programs, a large pro-tected area network, and other habitat conservation schemes. Despite theseincreases, however, the nation’s net carbon dioxide emissions have risen since


1990 as a result of increasing fossil fuel use associated with economic growthand changing forest growth rates associated with age structure. Scientists cau-tion that the forests of New Zealand will not be able to maintain their current50 percent absorption ratio unless reductions are made in actual carbon diox-ide emissions. Without such reductions, the government will also have lessfreedom to sell “carbon sink credits” at a lucrative price to other countries un-able to meet their Kyoto treaty obligations.

In addition, in 2002 New Zealand announced its intention to impose a car-bon tax to encourage conservation in fossil fuel consumption, and thus re-duce emissions of carbon dioxide and other chemicals responsible for climatechange. The tax of up to NZ$25 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent will belevied sometime after 2007—and will be imposed only if the Kyoto Protocolcomes into force internationally. It would raise retail gasoline prices by up to 6percent, diesel by 12 percent, and gas and electricity prices by 8 to 9 percent.The tax’s biggest target, however, would be coal users, who would see fuelcosts jump by nearly 20 percent. Still, some constituencies—such as farm-ers—are exempt from the tax.

If global climate change does wash over the planet in the twenty-first cen-tury as predicted, the repercussions for New Zealand are likely to eclipseweather changes associated with more familiar climatic patterns such as the ElNiño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, a recurring pattern thatperiodically makes the country cooler, drier, and more prone to cyclone activ-ity. This event, triggered by changes in surface air pressure over the PacificOcean, is capable of altering ocean currents, precipitation patterns, winds,and temperatures around the world, and scientists candidly admit that theimplications for New Zealand and other countries of interaction betweenglobal warming and ENSO remain largely a subject of conjecture and specula-tion. Still, climatologists do suspect that ENSO events may increase in fre-quency or duration as a result of human-induced climate change (ibid.).

Irrespective of ENSO, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change andother scientific bodies predict significant changes for New Zealand in a warm-ing world. For example, some scenarios suggest that the frost-free season inNew Zealand would be some 40 to 60 days longer, the snowline would creep100 to 400 meters (325 to 1,300 feet) higher in mountainous areas, and the seawould be 20 to 600 higher. Westerly winds would decline by 10 percent, bring-ing fewer rainy days to western regions. However, rain would be heavier thanat present, so that the west and north would be about 10 to 15 percent wetterand the east and south 5 to 10 percent drier (New Zealand Ministry for theEnvironment, 2002).

These climate changes would permanently transform New Zealand, dra-matically altering patterns of agriculture, reshaping human settlement and


migration patterns, and wreaking major changes on land, freshwater, and ma-rine habitat quality and species survival rates. Indeed, all natural areas, fromcoral reefs to rain forests will undergo substantive changes to their character,and no human demographic group—from young professionals living andworking in modern urban and residential centers to indigenous Maori com-munities that depend on fisheries and other elements of the natural world fortheir livelihoods—will be exempt from the ripple effects of climate change.

In some cases, the net impact of climate change may be beneficial, at least inthe short term. For example, in the realm of agriculture, some farming enter-prises may benefit from elevated carbon dioxide concentrations, which couldin turn produce improvements in growth rates and water-use efficiency. Inaddition, warmer conditions and lengthened growing seasons could providegreater agricultural opportunities in the south, where climate currently limitscertain crops and related industries from taking hold (New Zealand Ministryfor the Environment, 2002). But increases in the frequency and severity ofdrought and flood events could batter some agricultural enterprises, and tem-perature changes could preclude future cultivation of some traditional high-value crops. In addition, outbreaks of disease, insects, and invasive speciescould spread in range and severity, and the suitability of pasture lands for cat-tle and sheep is likely to change, with unpredictable outcomes for animal pro-ductivity and health.

A similar allotment of benefits and drawbacks associated with climatechange is likely to play out in other economic sectors and geographic regionsacross the country’s North and South Islands over the course of the twenty-first century. “It is already becoming clear that there will be temporary win-ners and losers in New Zealand,” summarized one government study. But thereport also reiterated New Zealand’s support for international measures toreduce greenhouse gas emissions and its conviction that “in the long term, ifclimate change continues unabated, there is little question that the globaleconomy and human welfare would be put under substantial threat” (ibid.).

Climate Change—A Threat to the Existence of Oceania?Gradual warming of the atmosphere associated with rising concentrations ofcarbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by human activity isof particular concern to the island states of Oceania. These Pacific Island coun-tries rank among the most endangered nations on earth if predicted levels ofclimate change come to pass. Small in stature, surrounded by ocean, and inmany cases perched only a few feet above sea level, these Oceanic states areacutely vulnerable to manifestations of global climate change such as rising sealevels and increased frequency of cyclones and other extreme weather events.


Already, evidence of climate change in Oceania is multiplying. Some atollsin the region have already been lost to rising seas, and extreme weather events(such as cyclones) are appearing with more regularity. These trends, coupledwith the recurring ENSO weather phenomenon, have also produced severedrought and water shortages across the region, including Papua New Guinea,Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, Samoa,and Fiji. Moreover, changes in general climatic conditions have also been re-ported since the mid-1970s by organizations such as New Zealand’s NationalInstitute of Water and Atmospheric Research. For example, Kiribati, thenorthern Cook Islands, Tokelau and the northern parts of French Polynesiahave all become wetter, while New Caledonia, Fiji, and Tonga have becomedrier. Similarly, cloud cover has increased in places like Tokelau, Samoa, andnortheast French Polynesia, while locales such as New Caledonia, Tonga,southwest French Polynesia, and Tuvalu are all becoming sunnier over time.These changes alone—even without rising sea levels, increased vulnerabilityto storm surges and cyclones, and drought—have major implications for agri-cultural productivity and ecosystem functions (UN Environment Program-me, 1999).

Specific changes to small island states as a direct result of global warminginclude profound coastal erosion and associated loss of land and property,forced dislocation of people and communities, increased risk from storm


Islands at Muri Beach, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. COREL

surges, reduced resilience and health of coastal ecosystems (including coralreefs, mangroves, and seagrasses), and wrenching changes to subsistencelivelihoods based on reef fishing and domestic and commercial crop produc-tion. Tourism, which has become an integral part of many island economies,would also be damaged or destroyed by any combination of these events.Finally, infectious tropical and subtropical diseases, especially mosquito-borne pathogens such as malaria, filariasis, dengue fever, and yellow fever, areexpected to become more widespread. “Adaptive capacity of human systemsis generally low in small island states, and vulnerability high,” summarizedthe IPCC. “Small island states are likely to be among the countries most seri-ously impacted by climate change” (Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulner-ability, 2001).

Of all the impacts of global warming on Oceania, however, the mostdreaded is the prospect of outright submersion of islands by rising sea levels.The IPCC has issued estimates that sea levels are likely to rise 50 centimeters(19 inches) by the year 2100, with some scenarios placing the increase as highas 95 centimeters (37 inches, or 3 feet) by the end of the century. These aresobering prognostications for citizens of island states such as Tuvalu, where thehighest point of land is only 5 meters (16 feet) above sea level. Moreover, stud-ies indicate that sea level rise is already occurring, and that further encroach-ment is likely even if the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol are adhered to andthe world eventually ends all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions after2020 (Jones, 1998, 1999; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000).

The island states of Oceania are responsible for virtually none of the green-house gas emissions that are warming the earth’s atmosphere. But they alsohave only modest political and economic power that they can use as leverage inconvincing major producers of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (such as theUnited States, Japan, Russia, Canada, and Australia) to curtail their emissions.This has given rise to feelings of bitterness and helplessness in some PacificIsland states. As one observer noted in a discussion of Tuvalu’s plight, “Whatdoes a country do when it knows it is of no concern to the rest of the world, hasno natural resources to sell, occupies a location so exposed to the elements thatis seems geography has played a bitter joke, and emerges from colonial depend-ency into the warming-up postmodern world?” (Levine, 2002).

Nonetheless, experts have encouraged Pacific Island countries to take somemeasures to prepare for the climate changes that seem inevitable. The UNEnvironment Programme, for example, states that local preparations couldlimit or minimize the negative fallout of climate change. “Improving themanagement of natural coastal systems such as coastal forests, mangroves,


beaches, reefs, and lagoons, the careful planning of coastal zone developments,and the construction of coastal defenses such as seawalls to protect particu-larly valuable and vulnerable sites, are all actions that can be implementednow. Adaptation strategies will not be cost-free . . . [but] an adaptation strat-egy that is planned for implementation over 30–50 years [in conjunction withother investments and environmental objectives] will impose lower costs thanone that has to be handled [absorbed] in a five-year period” (UN Environ-ment Programme, 1999). Some authorities in Oceania are also exploring im-migration programs to Australia and New Zealand should rising sea levels andheightened vulnerability to storms render some islands uninhabitable.

Sources:Anderson, Stephan, and K. Madhava Sarma. 2003. Protecting the Ozone Layer. London:

Earthscan.

Austin, D., and R. Repetto. 1997. The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for thePerplexed. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Australian Bureau of Resource Economics. 1999. Getting Energy and Greenhouse Gasesinto Perspective. Canberra: ABARE.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2001. Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends 2001.Canberra: ABS.


Buamert, Kevin A., et al. 2002. Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting theClimate. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 2000. Trends: A Compendium of Dataon Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Library, DOE.

Chiswell, Stephen, Melissa Bowen, and Brett Mullan. 2001. “New Zealand in a Warm-ing World.” Water and Atmosphere 9 (December).

Christoff, Peter. 1998. “From Global Citizen to Renegade State: Australia at Kyoto.”Arena Journal 10.

———. 2002. “Australia: A Continent in Reverse.” Report prepared for nineteen envi-ronmental and conservation groups in response to WSSD-Australian Assess-ment Report. Australia.

Downie, David. 1995. “Road Map or False Trail: Evaluating the Precedence of theOzone Regime as Model and Strategy for Global Climate Change.” Inter-national Environmental Affairs 7 (fall).

———. 1999. “The Power to Destroy: Understanding Stratospheric Ozone Politics asa Common Pool Resource Problem.” In Anarchy and the Environment: TheInternational Relations of Common Pool Resources. Edited by J. Samuel Barkinand George Shambaugh. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Environment Australia. 2002. WSSD–Australian National Assessment Report. Can-berra: Environment Australia.


Environmental Protection Authority, Victoria. 2000. Melbourne Mortality Study:Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on Daily Mortality in Melbourne 1991–1996.Publication 709. Victoria: EPAV.

Fisher, G., and R. Thompson. 1996. “Air Quality Monitoring in New Zealand.” Paperpresented at the Clean Air Society Conference, Adelaide, October.

Hales, S., P. Weinstein, and A. Woodward. 1996.“Dengue Fever Epidemics in the SouthPacific: Driven by El Nino Southern Oscillation?” Lancet 348.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. The Regional Impacts of ClimateChange: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC.

———. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulner-ability: Summaries for Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.

———. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Geneva: IPCC.

Jones, R. 1998. “An Analysis of the Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on Pacific IslandCountries. Part One: Identification of Latent Sea-level Rise within the ClimateSystem at 1995 and 2020.” Report presented to the South Pacific RegionalEnvironmental Programme, Apia, Western Samoa.

Jones, R., et al. 1999. “An Analysis of the Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on PacificIsland Countries. Part Two: Regional Climate Change Scenarios and RiskAssessment Methods.” Report presented to the South Pacific Regional Envi-ronmental Programme, Apia, Western Samoa.

Kuschel, G., and G. Fisher. 1996. Proceedings of the 1996 National Workshop Series onAir Quality Issues: Motor Vehicle Emissions (Christchurch, 30 April 1996).Auckland: National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research.

Leggett, Jeremy. 2001. The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era.London: Routledge.

Levine, Mark. 2002. “Tuvalu Toodle-oo.” Outside 27 (December).

Loughran, Robert J., Paul J. Tranter, and Guy M. Robinson. 2000. Australia and NewZealand: Economy, Society and Environment. London: Edward Arnold.

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 1997. Climate Change, the New ZealandResponse: New Zealand’s Second National Communication under the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.


———. 2002. Climate Change Impacts on New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for theEnvironment.

Stone, R. 1995. “If the Mercury Soars, So May the Health Hazards.” Science 267.

Turton, Hal, and Clive Hamilton. 2002. Updating Per Capita Emissions for Indust-rialised Countries. Canberra: Australian Institute.

UN Environment Programme. 1998. Production and Consumption of Ozone DepletingSubstances 1986–1996. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Ozone Secretariat.

———. 1999. Global Environment Outlook 2000. London: Earthscan.

———. 2000. Action on Ozone. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Ozone Secretariat.


UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2003. Greenhouse Gas InventoryDatabase. Available at http://ghg.unfccc.int/ (accessed January 2003).

Weinstein, P. 1996.“When Will the Mosquitos Strike?” New Zealand Science Monthly 7,no. 3.

Woodward, A. 1995. “An Overview of the Consequences for Human Health of RapidClimate Change.” In Health Effects of Climate Change in New Zealand and theSouth Pacific—Conference. Wellington: Wellington School of Medicine.

World Bank. 1999. World Development Indicators 1999. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Programme. 1998. WMO/UNEP Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Geneva: WMO/UNEP.

World Resources Institute. 2000. World Resources 2000–2001, People and Ecosystems:The Fraying Web of Life. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.


10

Environmental Activism

—K AT H R Y N M I L E S

The history of all colonized countries is a dichotomous one: Indigenouspeoples and their colonizers often existed at great cultural odds with one

another. At no time is this more apparent than when examining human ecol-ogy—the relationship between these various peoples and their environment.The role of the land for indigenous peoples, who often practice pantheisticreligions, and their white colonizers, who sought to claim and develop thatsame land, is hugely varied and often proved violently incompatible. Thisgreat ecological divide is brilliantly pronounced in the history of Australiaand Oceania. Explored and settled largely by the Dutch, French, and Englishin the eighteenth century, these islands have witnessed great conflict over thehandling of their lands and native peoples for more than two centuries.

Although the colonial births of these countries is not significantly differentfrom those found in much of the Americas, the relative newness of their de-velopment brings the great cultural divides of their populations into stark re-lief, and it has left an indelible mark on the consciousness of these people.Nationhood has been a recent phenomenon for most of the islands ofOceania, with Australia abolishing the last of its constitutional ties to GreatBritain in 1968; New Zealand declared its independence in 1907, Fiji in 1970,and Papua New Guinea as late as 1974. Palau, meanwhile, only gained inde-pendence in 1994. Some of the islands in the region still remain under the ju-risdiction of the British, French, and U.S. governments.

Because of these strong political and social ties to Europe and America, therise of the modern environmental movement on the islands of Oceania hasbeen largely tied to the environmental movements of Great Britain and theUnited States. The Oceanic environmental movement, particularly inAustralia and New Zealand, first found rooting in the nineteenth century (as

207

Australia’s aboriginal peoples have been described as the continent’s first conservationists. COREL

did the nascent labor, women’s, and peace movements), but it remained in alargely quiescent mode until the 1960s. From that time forward it grew rap-idly, and the environmental movement is now a potent political force in bothcountries (Hutton and Connors, 1999).

Roots of Modern Environmentalism Precolonial cultures established on these islands by Polynesian settlers weresteeped in respect for and understanding of the natural environment. But themodern “environmental movement,” as the phrase is understood today, isgrounded in the mid to late nineteenth century, when European explorationof the region intensified. Much of the initial Western exploration of the regionwas undertaken by Captain James Cook, a Royal Navyman and the firstWestern explorer of the South Pacific.“When Captain James Cook first set sailfor the South Seas on board the Endeavor in 1768 he knew there was a largelandmass—known only as Terra Australis Incognita—which, as the name sug-gests, was largely unexplored by Europeans. Dutch and English sailors hadstarted to map the west coast of this ‘unknown’ continent; enough to knowthat it was a very large land mass. But they were not impressed with the aridlandscapes they encountered” (Mulligan and Hill, 2001).

Cook’s expedition nevertheless undertook extensive documentation of theflora and fauna of the region. This endeavor was spearheaded by JosephBanks, the chief naturalist aboard the Endeavor. Through Banks’s use ofLinnaean taxonomy (a system of classification using formal Latinate genusand species names), the Western world first became familiar with the variedand rich environment of Oceania. It was also in Banks’s work that the longconflict between native and Western environmentalism had its genesis. Banks“initiated the concept of terra nullis to suggest that the land was open forclaim, and he extended this concept to Australian plants and animals becausehe saw little commercial potential in them. . . . Banks had quickly reached theconclusion that the new land had little to excite the interest of Europeans. Theanimals were exotic and the plants very unusual but there seemed little thatcould be eaten or even used by humans. Despite his close encounters withAborigines, he thought they held ‘a rank little superior to that of monkeys.’ Hesuggested that the land was essentially unoccupied, thus coining the notion ofterra nullis” (ibid.).

Banks’s characterization of the Aboriginal peoples as “little superior” tomonkeys was a common one throughout much of the eighteenth and nine-teenth centuries. Although by this time many—but by no means all—scien-tists were prepared to acknowledge that humankind belonged to one species,most still touted the belief that there were levels of human development

Environmental Activism 209

evinced by various races. The lowest or most animal-like level of humanitywas termed savagery, and the aboriginal peoples of Oceania were held up asexamples of this stunted level of development (Head, 2000).

These aboriginal peoples—a patriarchal and nature-worshipping cultureof hunters and gatherers—exercised their own unique version of conserva-tion, based largely on a naturalistic religion and sense that identity is tied tothe earth, as well as a keen understanding that their welfare was inextricablytied to the health of the environment around them. What this meant in termsof environmentalism was a severe schism in which the native and colonial set-tlers would undertake two very distinct approaches to early environmental-ism. Both the aboriginal and colonial people perceived Oceania as a land ofplenty for humankind; however, the aboriginal peoples assimilated with thenatural world and “became conservationists,” while white settlers continuedto exploit the land with no awareness of “ecological reality” (ibid.).

The British Invasion: European Settlement and Scientific Exploration (1820–1880)Although the early nineteenth century witnessed early glimmers of environ-mental concern, such as P. E. D. Strzelecki’s Physical Description of New SouthWales and Van Diemen’s Land (1845), which warned of soil erosion at thehands of Western crop practices, the nascent environmental movement at thistime was defined largely through colonial art and biological inquiry. Indeed,Oceania had become something of a hotbed of colonization by the mid-1900s, as British people flocked to areas such as Tasmania and the Swan RiverColony. Although colonial law allowed the Aborigines to continue to ownproperty, a rising form of ethno-geography pioneered by Griffith Taylor sug-gested that certain regions or zones of the region were particularly suited forvarious races. This allowed white settlers, particularly in Australia, to justifyremoving Aborigines to the desertlike interior of the continent while they en-joyed the biological diversity of the coastal areas.

The first task of European scientists in Oceania was twofold: remove theshroud of mystery—the terra incognita aspect—surrounding the region, andbegin establishing a coherent classification system to account for the myriadnew and potentially valuable forms of life. The most famous of these endeav-ors is, of course, Charles Darwin’s scientific inquiry while serving as chief nat-uralist aboard the HMS Beagle in the mid-1830s. Darwin’s travel journal,which was later published as The Voyage of the Beagle, lay the foundation forhis later theories of evolution and natural selection.

But Darwin was not alone in his work. One of the most notable environ-mental scientists of this era was Georgiana Molloy, the wife of a Swan River


Colony settler who became an expert in Australian botany and did much toraise awareness of Oceanic flora throughout Europe. Initially homesick forher English gardens, Molloy struck a close relationship with British horticul-turalist Captain James Mangles, who sent her a box of seeds common inBritish gardens.“What was unusual about the gift was that it came with a noteasking Molloy to return the box filled with Australian seeds and pressed flow-ers. . . . The trip [to fill this box] became a daily event and her knowledgeabout the diversity of life grew enormously. Captain Mangles was delighted bythe collection he received, and he and Molloy maintained an active correspon-dence” (Mulligan and Hill, 2001). Through Molloy’s work, England and therest of Europe not only became familiar with the lush vegetation of Australia,they also learned to value this new world of plant life through its strategicplacement in many of the continent’s botanical gardens.

Oceania’s numerous and exotic species of flora also piqued the interested ofenvironmental artists. John Glover, a painter famous for his romantic depic-tions of the natural landscape, sailed to Tasmania and quickly became a life-long student and admirer of the Tasmanian environment and its nativeinhabitants. Art became a vehicle for early conservation as well. Eugene vonGuérard, another transplanted landscape painter, helped to launch one of thefirst formal acts of conservation in the region. His 1857 painting set in a forestat Ferntree Gully in the Dandenong Ranges east of Melbourne sparked a pub-lic campaign against a proposal to log the area in 1861. The literary world alsodid much to raise awareness about the Oceanic environment. Along withGlover, Adam Lindsay Gordon—a romantic poet deeply influenced by Cole-ridge, Byron, and Wordsworth—moved to South Australia to experience thebeauty of this new and largely unsullied wilderness. His subsequent works,which touted the beauty of the Australian landscape, earned him widespreadrecognition as the “National Poet of Australia” (ibid.).

Through the work of these early pioneers, the rest of the world caught aglimmer of the rich biodiversity and natural resources offered by Oceania.Although the taxonomic systems of collection and classification used by thesefirst scientists and artists may seem primitive to our contemporary sense ofenvironmentalism, they nevertheless paved the way for later appreciation andeventual protection of the Oceanic wildlife.

The Birth of Conservation (1880–1960)Spurred on by the work of writers and artists, the colonial cultures of Oceaniabegan to assert their own identities independent of European rule. The first suchmovement to this end was the school of Heidelberg painters, the first Australianschool of art. Although influenced largely by French impressionism, members


of this school—Tom Roberts, Frederick McCubbin, Arthur Streeton, CharlesConder, and Louis Abrahams—created a style very much their own that wasdictated largely by the unique landscape of the Australian coast. This tendencywas shared by writers of the day as well. With the emergence and success of theperiodical The Bulletin came a new voice for the Australian people. The writersof The Bulletin “were determined to tackle the cultural cringe toward all thingsEnglish in order to assert a new and proud Australian identity. For both theHeidelberg painters and The Bulletin writers, the emerging Australian identitywas rooted in the experience of distinctive and challenging landscapes. Whiletrying to take a fresh look at the relationship between Australian identity andthe land, the Bulletin writers maintained the dominating terra nullis attitude to-ward the indigenous people” (ibid.).

The late nineteenth century brought with it a desire for organized actionconcerning the environment. Much of this action was directed toward socialrecreation; however, there was also an important element—albeit modest insize—of environmental activism and habitat protection as well. Indeed, manyhistorians cite the decades of the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s as the real nexus ofearly environmentalism among white communities in Australia and NewZealand. During this period the Melbourne-based Argus newspaper emergedas an ardent supporter of preservation of areas of natural beauty, especiallyforests being targeted by loggers. In addition, a variety of organizations andsocieties devoted to scientific exploration of the natural world were created,including the Zoological Society of Victoria, the Australian Association for theAdvancement of Science, the Field Naturalists Club, the Western AustralianNatural History Society, and the New Zealand Society, a national scientificgroup with a membership constituted of imported British gentry. In 1880,meanwhile, the founding of the Victorian Field Naturalists Club heralded thebeginning of an era in which organizations devoted to enjoying and protect-ing the outdoors proliferated (ibid.; Hutton and Connors, 1999).

The face of environmentalism in Oceania began to change dramaticallyduring this era. In Australia and New Zealand in particular, economic stabilityhad created a white middle class with time for leisure and recreation. The cre-ation of this middle class allowed for the development of four streams of envi-ronmentalism. These branches of environmentalism included the creationand support of a national parks system, the conservation of flora and fauna,the protest against millinery use of plumage, and the nascent bushwalkingconservation movement. “There was no mass mobilization to bring the fourstreams together. . . . [E]arly environmentalists defined themselves narrowlyby their own specific causes. Within the four streams, however, there were pat-terns of growth, consolidation, resolution of demands or failure” (Hutton andConnors, 1999).


The first of these movements, the campaign to create a national park sys-tem, began officially in 1879 with the creation of the Royal National Park, justsouth of Sydney. The first national park in Oceania, the Royal National wasalso the second national park in the world, created just after the unveiling ofYellowstone Park in the United States and six years before Canada’s BanffNational Park came into being. The creation of the Royal National Park andsubsequent parks was deeply indebted to these efforts in North America. Butunlike the United States and Canada, where management of national parksand national forests is the responsibility of the federal government, Australiadetermined to place responsibility for its protected areas in the hands of thestates, rather than the commonwealth.

The creation of the Northern District Forest Conservation League in 1888ensured that development of a national park system would continue into thetwentieth century. But the ultimate shape and character of this system—andwildlands conservation efforts in general—can be traced in great measure toRos Garnet and Myle Dunphy. Garnet, a leading figure in the Field NaturalistsClub of Victoria, also helped in the publication of The Victorian Naturalist, acatalog of botanical discoveries, and he was integral in raising public aware-ness and political support needed to sustain the early parks. Myles Dunphyalso became a great advocate of national parks, especially those primarilyaimed at preserving wilderness. In 1932 he formed the National Parks andPrimitive Areas Council, which has been called Australia’s first wilderness so-ciety, and he doggedly worked to shift public perceptions about the value ofwilderness. Moreover, Dunphy’s writings convinced a large contingent of theenvironmental movement to abandon its long-time reliance on harvesting,collecting, and displaying of exotic species. “For Dunphy, wilderness was asource of infinite variety and personal inspiration and he sought to share hisexcitement about wild country in his writings” (Mulligan and Hill, 2001).Fourteen major parks were eventually established as a direct result of thecouncil’s campaigns to preserve them as wilderness for backpacking and otherrecreational purposes (McNeely et al., 1994).

Another watershed moment in the history of the Australian environmentalmovement was the millinery craze of the early twentieth century. In additionto recreation, the growing middle class of white Oceania demanded the latestin haute fashion as a way of demonstrating their commitment to leisure. Formany, that meant adorning themselves with feathers and furs. This trend ledto the massive extermination of Oceanic birds and marsupials and created animmediate crisis for the blossoming environmental movement. In response tothe slaughter, concerned individuals formed a variety of conservation groupsin Tasmania, South Australia, and other parts of the country. For example, themassive harvest of birds was a factor in the 1909 founding of Australia’s


Wildlife Preservation Society, which eventually developed into an organiza-tion of significant political clout and national presence.

The millinery issue also compelled people and organizations that had pre-viously limited themselves to scientific inquiry to adopt more of an advocacyposition in behalf of threatened natural landscapes and species. A particularlytelling example of this shift toward conservation was evident within theLinnean Society of South Wales, an organization devoted to plant and animalbiology and taxonomy and natural history. In 1908, the society’s president,A. H. S. Lucas, publicly joined the movement to force Australia to begin pro-tecting its birds, a decidedly different and more political decision than anypreviously made by the Linnean Society. Meanwhile, the Australian Orni-thologists Union pointed to species protective legislation enacted by theUnited States and Britain and argued for the need for similar laws in Australia.

By the early 1900s the pressure exerted by these groups convinced a num-ber of states to pass legislation extending greater protections to some nativebirds. “The campaign against Australia’s bird and feather trade was probablythe first organized environmental activity to pierce the Australian conscious-ness about a particular environmental threat,” concluded one analysis. “It wasalso significant, for this campaign was not based on preserving potentialrecreation areas, nor was it of direct utilitarian benefit to most Australians: itwas about the imminent loss of native species, some of which had becomenational icons” (Hutton and Connors, 1999). Similar events took place inNew Zealand as well. In 1914, several members of Parliament organized theNew Zealand Forest and Bird Protection Society. It soon disbanded, but wasreplaced in 1923 with the Native Bird Protection Society, which was similarlydedicated to the preservation of the country’s bird species and the habitatupon which they depended.

Even the Australian Bushwalkers, originally a group of landed Westernersdesiring to conquer the remaining uncolonized land in Australia, joined in theburgeoning conservation movement. The Bushwalkers became deeply com-mitted to the idea of preserving and protecting Australian land for its ownsake. This shift in group identity occurred in 1931, when a group of Bush-walkers led by Alan Rigby discovered that a tract of land near the Grose Riverwas leased and being cleared. Rigby approached the Mountain Trails Club andthe Bush Walkers Club with the idea of buying, and thus preserving, this land.Rigby and the Bushwalkers were successful in their endeavor, and the tract ofland became known as the Blue Gum Conservation area. This initiative was thefirst such action taken by conservation groups in Australia (ibid.).

The early decades of the twentieth century also witnessed the first popularattention to the plight of the Aboriginal peoples of Oceania. Literary circles


led the way in this endeavor. In the 1910s, children’s literature author MayGibbs wrote a series of books introducing children to the forests of Oceaniaand its native occupants. Her most widely known works—Gum-Nut Babies,Gum-Blossom Babies, and The Magic Pudding: Being the Adventures of BunyipBluegum and His friends Bill Barnacle and Sam Sawnoff—all depict mythicalAboriginal youngsters in an exotified but compassionate light. What seemsmost significant about these depictions is Gibbs’s ability to capture the con-nection between these peoples and their environment as well as their respectand awe for the natural world.

Adult literature was making similar strides. In the 1930s, a group of writersdedicated to celebrating Aboriginal influence formed the Jindyworobakschool. Much of their philosophy is encapsulated in the poetry of JudithWright, who urged:

Listen, listen

Latecomers to my country

Eat of wild manna

There is

There was

A country

That spoke in the language of the leaves

— (QUOTED IN POLLAK AND MACNABB, 2000)

Like Gibbs, Wright and the other members of the Jindyworobak school sawand celebrated the connection between Aboriginal people and the environ-ment—the ability to recognize the “manna” of the earth and its voice.

In the meantime, Aboriginal communities that had long suffered from thediscriminatory policies and racist attitudes of white Australians became in-creasingly agitated over the changes that intensive mining, logging, cattlegrazing, and farming activities were wreaking on the continent’s rivers,forests, and plains. Those Aborigines employed by white Australia were oftenrelegated to difficult jobs mining and developing the earth. Not only werethese workers asked to do work antithetical to their view of nature, but theywere also told to do so on land that had once been their own. This crisis ofconsciousness reached a head in 1946, when a group of Aboriginal stockmen


in the Pilbara district of Western Australia went on strike. Although the strikedid little to change the immediate conditions of the workers, it did set a tonefor Aboriginal rights that would become most significant in the followingdecades as modern environmentalism took root throughout Oceania.

The Face of Modern Environmentalism: 1960–2000The public presence of the environmental movement lessened during WorldWar II and immediately thereafter in Australia and New Zealand. But bothgovernments did institute important environmental measures during this pe-riod. Actions such as the 1948 passage of the Fauna Protection Act in NewSouth Wales and the 1948 creation of the New Zealand “Native Birds Pre-servation Committee,” a branch of the Department of Internal Affairs, wereimportant milestones in habitat and species protection. Similarly, the 1951creation of the National Resources Conservation League, an Australian non-profit group dedicated to resource management, came about because of heavygovernment support. The league prospered from the outset, and it eventuallygrew to become one of the largest and most influential of Victoria’s conserva-tion groups (Hutton and Connors, 1999).

But it was not until the following decade that environmental activism, fueledin no small measure by increased nongovernmental organization (NGO) par-ticipation, really flourished in Oceania. “A second wave of environmentalismtook shape in Australia in the late 1960s as the conservation movement beganto tackle a broader agenda and adopted more radical campaigning methods,”recalled one account of the continent’s environmental history. “The move-ment was also enriched by the arrival of organizations that began life in otherparts of the world, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, who broughtwith them a concern for global issues like the environmental threats of thenuclear industry and the loss of biodiversity on a global scale. However, evenas it changed direction, the environmental movement in Australia still carriedthe legacy of the frontier mentality that fostered the hyperseparation of peo-ple and ‘the bush’” (Mulligan and Hill, 2001).

The Little Desert CampaignOne early landmark in the development of the modern environmental move-ment was the 1963 Little Desert Campaign, in which the government of Vic-toria and local activists became deadlocked over the handling of a tract ofland in the Little Desert Wilderness. This conflict arose when the Victoriangovernment hired local developers to convert 40,000 hectares of Little DesertWilderness into a combination of farms and single-family housing. Local res-idents, heavily supported by various private environmental groups, favored


the conversion of this land to a national park, where it would remain pro-tected. In 1968–1969, Sir William McDonald, the new minister for lands, dis-regarded environmental protests and reported that the Little Desert Land wasquestionable farmland; he then introduced a special Land Act to subdivide theland into fifty farms and a National Park of 32,000 hectares. This solutionpleased neither side, and amidst great debate the government eventually re-solved to reduce the number of farms to twelve and add an additional 500 to600 hectares to the proposed national park. What was most significant aboutthis action was not only the willingness of the Victorian government to workwith environmental groups but also the fact that various factions of the devel-oping environmental movement banded together over a single cause for thefirst time in Oceania’s modern history (Hutton and Connors, 1999).

This sort of moral protest intensified in the wake of the publication of A. J.Marshall’s The Great Extermination in 1966. Like Rachel Carson’s SilentSpring, published four years previously in the United States, Marshall’s warn-ing about the destruction of fauna throughout Australia created something ofa public sensation, for it was the first publication of its kind to use quantifiablescientific data to register grave concerns about the future of the environmentin Australia.

The year 1966 proved a crucial one for Oceanic environmentalism in otherrespects as well. In addition to the publication of Marshall’s seminal work, agrowing list of legislation and direct action made environmentalism the focusfor many of the region’s inhabitants. During this year, the founding of theAustralian Conservation League, an influential NGO, became official. In PapuaNew Guinea, the government passed the Fauna Protection and Control Act of1966, one of the first environmental conservation acts for the new country.This statute provided for the creation of wildlife sanctuaries and protectedareas, and forbade all hunting of threatened species except by indigenousPapua New Guineans using traditional methods for customary noncommer-cial purposes (Stevens, 1997). The creation of these reserves represented an at-tempt by the Papua New Guinea government to reinstate many aspects of theland tenure system used by its native peoples before colonialization.

Similar actions began to take shape in Australia as well. With the 1960s camethe emergence of the modern Aboriginal land rights movement in the country.Originally based in the Northern Territory, this movement soon began to en-compass much of Australia. It gained international attention on May 1, 1966,when a group of Aboriginal Water Stockmen in Newcastle went on strike forbetter working conditions and a more sustainable use of the landscape, andwas quickly succeeded by the Wave Hill Strike, a similar action by Aboriginalworkers. Both actions brought the Aboriginal land rights issue to the forefrontof Australian political concerns, and in 1968, nearly two hundred years after


the first Westerners arrived on the shores of Australia, Aborigines were grantedcitizenship and the right to vote.

Meanwhile, a series of development proposals by the Australian govern-ment once again galvanized the fast-growing environmental movement. In1967, a proposal by the Hydro-Electric Commission to dam the Gordon Riverand flood Lake Pedder in Tasmania elicited strong protests from the environ-mental community, fronted by the modern Bushwalkers. The group was ledby Brenda Hean, a charismatic environmentalist and devoted bushwalker whoquickly took leadership of the group fighting to save Lake Pedder. Hean diedlater that year in a suspicious plane crash.

As significant as the fight to save the Gordon and Lake Pedder was, it paledin comparison to the fight to save the Great Barrier Reef, Australia’s coastaltreasure. This battle began in 1957, when Judith Wright, one of Australia’sbest-loved modern environmentalists, learned that water sewage dischargeand other pollutants were threatening to destroy the great reef. Her fightpicked up new allies and momentum in 1967 when the government receivedproposals to mine the reef and engage in offshore oil exploration. Wright andher allies effectively rallied widespread public support against the energy in-dustry’s plans, and the conservation campaign eventually resulted in the cre-ation of the Great Barrier Reef National Park in 1975. This triumph has beencited as the Australian environmental movement’s crowning achievement ofthe twentieth century (Dunlap, 1999).

Environmentalism Goes MainstreamThe “mainstreaming” of environmentalism during the 1970s was greatly aidedby the written word. A series of publications, both literary and periodical, popu-larized the work of environmental groups. For example, writer and folk artistMeg Miller launched the hugely successful magazine Grass Roots, a periodicaldevoted to self-sufficiency and ecologically sensitive lifestyles, in 1973. Shortlythereafter, the equally successful publication Wild popularized the wildernessfor many of Australia’s younger generation, blending coverage of the boomingoutdoor recreation and adventure industry with the conservation mission ofenvironmental groups. The literary world followed suit. Author Patrick Whitepublished a series of novels between 1955 and 1976 devoted to Oceanic wilder-ness and human ecology, and his Nobel Prize of 1963 was described as “partly arecognition of an emerging and distinct Australian literature that was drawinginspirations from Australian landscapes” (Pollak and MacNabb, 2000). White’ssuccess was shared by writers such as Xavier Herbert, who also combined depic-tions of the Australian landscape and an environmental mission in their work.Herbert, who was formally trained as a botanist and pharmacist, spent much ofhis time in the Australian bush during the 1950s and 1960s. This experience is


brought to light in his 1975 novel Poor Fellow My Country, which exults in theAustralian wilderness and champions the need for greater protection.

The rest of academia shared in this trend. Ecology and conservation biol-ogy had both arrived on the scene sometime earlier, and ecophilosophy soonfollowed. This school of theory was based on the deep ecology of NorwegianArne Naess, which advocated removing environmentalism from any anthro-pomorphic attachments and focusing, instead, on land ethics and an ecocen-tric view of the world that privileges nature over humanity. Ecophilosophyshared in this commitment to ecocentricism, and scholars such as RichardRoutley, Val Plumwood, Ariel Salley, and Warwick Fox allowed the movementto gain traction in Australia and the rest of the world.

Outside of academe, the environmental movement found a strong ally inthe mid-1970s when the Gough Whitlam government took office. Whitlamhad run on a campaign that emphasized a strong environmental focus andcommitment to political and social justice. In 1973, under Whitlam’s leader-ship, the federal government of Australia awarded $100,000 in grants to envi-ronmental centers throughout the country, the first action of its kind inAustralia (Hutton and Connors, 1999). The Whitlam government followed upin 1974 with the passage of the Australian Environmental Protection Act. Ayear later, the government passed the Australian National Parks and WildlifeConservation Act, which also allowed for the creation of the AustralianNational Parks and Wildlife Service, renamed the Australian Nature Con-servation Agency in the early 1990s.

Action continued in the private sector as well. One of the most pivotalevents for the growing environmental movement of Australia was the so-called Anti-Uranium Movement of the 1970s. Although uranium had beenmined since the 1940s in Queensland and the Northern Territory, this practicebecame of new concern in 1974 when the Australian government proposedexpanding mining operations into the Kakadu area. Environmental groupssuch as Friends of the Earth as well as various trade unions and Aboriginalgroups came together to fight this proposal specifically and uranium miningmore generally. “The anti-uranium campaign, as a significant component ofthe environment movement, reflected all of the characteristics of a successfulsocial movement,” observed one account of the struggle. “It had expandedhorizontally to form umbrella groups, and these in turn had linked with othermovements, such as the trade unions and indigenous groups. It had chal-lenged principal institutional norms and sociopolitical patterns by its predi-cation of the authoritarianism implicit in a state dependent on nuclearindustry, its critique of centralized technology, and its espousal of renewableenergy. It had also connected with political power by directing its message tosignificant sections of the trade union movement and the Labor Party” (ibid.).


Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett. RUNE HELLESTAD/CORBIS

Peter Garrett was born around 1953 and

grew up in Sydney, Australia. His parents

encouraged him “to express opinions

and talk about things,”he recalled.“We

didn’t spend our life in front of the

television set”(Small, 1990). Garrett

attended private schools and went on

to earn a law degree from the University

of New South Wales.The summer before

he graduated, however, he answered a

newspaper advertisement placed by a

rock band looking for a lead singer. He

joined the group Midnight Oil in 1977,

the same year that he passed the bar

exam.

Midnight Oil started out as a local

band and gradually expanded its

popularity across Australia.Throughout

its twenty-five-year history, the group

was known for its social conscience and

activism in behalf of various causes,

including Aboriginal rights and

environmental protection. In 1986,

Midnight Oil embarked on its “Black

Fella White Fella”tour, traveling across

Australia to remote Aboriginal

settlements with the indigenous

Warumpi Band.This experience had a

strong effect on Garrett, as the band

visited native communities devastated

by poverty, disease, and discrimination.

It also influenced many songs on the

1987 album Diesel and Dust, which

brought Midnight Oil to worldwide

attention.The critically acclaimed Blue

Sky Mining followed in 1989, along with

a world concert tour.

In 1990, Midnight Oil performed a

lunchtime concert outside the Exxon

Building in New York City to protest the

Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince

William Sound.The concert attracted

10,000 spectators and was turned into a

documentary video, Black Rain Falls,

with proceeds from its sale going to the

environmental group Greenpeace.The

group performed many other benefit

concerts during the 1990s, prompting

Garrett to call Midnight Oil “a terminally

serious band appearing at the right

places for the right things”

(Contemporary Musicians, 1994).

Midnight Oil released more than a

dozen albums over the years and

earned international acclaim. One critic

noted that the group “combined an

acute awareness of political, social, and

environmental issues with an

aggressive rock sound to create one of

the most distinctive voices in current

popular music”(ibid.). Garrett’s focus in

his music was to encourage fellow

Australians to examine their priorities

and stimulate young people to think

critically about the world around them.

He retired from Midnight Oil in

December 2002, following the release

of the album Capricornia and

accompanying world tour.

Throughout his career as lead singer

of Midnight Oil, Garrett used his

celebrity to voice his opinion on many

environmental issues. In 1984 he ran for

the Australian Senate on the Nuclear

Peter Garrett: Environmental Activist and International Rock Star

(continues)

Disarmament Party ticket. His

candidacy drew 200,000 votes, which

nearly earned him a victory, but he later

claimed that he was relieved to have

lost the election. He had achieved his

goal in running—which was to send a

message about nuclear weapons—and

was not ready to leave the band.

In 1989, Garrett was elected

president of the Australian

Conservation Foundation (ACF), the

continent’s largest environmental

group. ACF is a membership-based

organization that seeks to form

partnerships with communities and

businesses to work together toward

protecting Australia’s natural heritage

and promoting ecological

sustainability. Some of the issues ACF

tackles include water resource

management, endangered species,

uranium mining policies, and global

warming. During Garrett’s tenure as

president, ACF achieved results in

protecting Tasmanian forests and

Coronation Hill in Kakadu National

Park, as well as in stopping construction

of a naval base at Jervis Bay in New

South Wales.

Garrett resigned from ACF in 1993

to take a position on the international

board of directors for Greenpeace. He

resumed his presidency of ACF in 1998,

however, after deciding that he

preferred to focus on Australian issues.

Some of his recent work has concerned

genetic engineering, coastal

development, and expansion of the

nuclear industry in Australia.“I don’t

need to wheel out a thousand

scientists to sense what’s happening on

the planet,”he once said.“I can taste

the air. I can feel the wind. And I know I

have to be part of the healing process”

(Small, 1990).

Garrett lives in the southern

highlands of New South Wales with his

wife and three daughters. He has

received several awards for his

environmental activism. In 1997 he was

named to the National Trust List of

Living Treasures, and in 2000 he

received the Australian Humanitarian

Foundation Award in the

environmental category. Garrett says

that the most satisfying thing he has

done in his life is “helping to raise

people’s awareness that the natural

world is our only home to live in and

take fair dinkum care of”(“Peter Garrett

Talks,” 2000).

Sources:“Midnight Oil.”1994. In Contemporary

Musicians, vol. 11. Detroit: Gale.

“Peter Garrett: ACF President.”2001.

Australian Conservation Foundation.

January. Available at http://www.

acfonline.org.au/asp/pages/documen

t.asp?IdDoc=20.

“Peter Garrett: Biography.”Available at

http://www.petergarrett.com.au/

biography.html.

“Peter Garrett Talks about His Heroes.”

2000. Heroism: Stories and Biographies.

Available at http://library.thinkquest.

org/C001515/heroism/peterg.htm.

Ray, Louise. 1998.“Peter Garrett: From

the Top.”Habitat Australia 26 (August).

Small, Michael. 1990.“Environmentalist

Peter Garrett, Lead Singer for

Midnight Oil, Looks Like Mr. Clean and

Sounds Like Mr. Cleanup.”People

(August 20).

Indeed, trade unions and the Labor Party became important players in theAustralian environmental movement of the 1970s. In the third year of thatdecade, Jack Mundey, secretary of the New South Wales Builders LaborersFederation, coined the term “green ban.” Operating under the belief that allpeople of Australia, regardless of income, color, or place of residence, were en-titled to green space and natural environment, Mundey and the workers herepresented utilized “green bans”—in essence a focused strike whereby unionworkers would refuse to participate in any construction project that mightcompromise previously undeveloped or otherwise historic space—to great ef-fect. Over the next several years, these bans helped to preserve a variety ofopen spaces and historic buildings. These green bans “were so successful be-cause they combined three important factors: widespread community mobi-lizations; supportive trade unions that could exert economic power to counterthe developers; and ideological coherence that was contributed especially bythe Communist leadership of the Builders Laborers Federation” (ibid.).

In terms of the larger environmental movement of Oceania, green bans alsohelped environmentalists broaden the focus of their attentions to includespaces like historic buildings and other remnants of past culture. The “envi-ronment” became not just the unsullied bush and lush shores of Oceania butthe stories told by aging and unique buildings as well. To this end, Australiasigned the World Heritage Convention and passed the Australian HeritageCommission Act in 1975, thereby ensuring the further protection of theseplaces. New Zealand would follow suit with the inclusion of historic space inthe Department of Conservation and National Parks office.

Of course, the wilderness of Oceania remained very much in the forefrontduring these changes, and organizations such as the Wilderness Society ofAustralia continued to focus most of their energy on enlisting public supportin protecting Australia’s remaining wild spaces. “We have to try to sell not thewilderness experience—that is, wilderness as a recreational resource—but theright of the wilderness to exist . . . for its own sake,” declared Kevin Kiernan, acofounder of the organization and its first director (quoted in ibid.).

Environmentalism and Race RelationsRace relations continued to be a vexing problem for the Australian environ-mental movement. Although many environmental groups strove to work withAboriginal peoples, many native peoples—and white environmentalists aswell—felt that too often, the efforts were cursory in nature and did not reflectsufficient appreciation for Aboriginal history and perspectives. Activists suchas Judith Wright came to feel that environmentalists too often saw the inter-ests of Aboriginal people as an obstacle to the protection of “pristine nature.”


In 1990 she publicly condemned the policy of the Wilderness Society onAboriginal land rights, describing their position as a “confirmation and en-dorsement of the terra nullis judgement,” and one year later she resigned fromthe organization she had helped to create, the Wildlife Preservation Society ofQueensland (WPSQ), because she felt that it had adopted a “weak” positionon Aboriginal land rights (Mulligan and Hill, 2001).

Australian Aborigines, environmental activists, and the commonwealthgovernment did register some notable successes during the 1970s, however.The most important of these was a commitment to the joint management ofseveral of Australia’s national parks. In 1979, the Australian government,working with Aborigines in the Northern Territory, established KakaduNational Park. What made the establishment of this park so significant wasthat it existed on lands owned by the Aborigines and was managed both bythe Gagaudju tribe of traditional owners and the Australian ConservationAgency. Both groups characterized the formation and subsequent manage-ment of the park as a great success, and its creation signaled a victory in thequest to mend the great environmental schism between the races in the re-gion. Since then, three more Aboriginal-owned national parks have been cre-ated in the same area—Gurig and Nitmiluk under Northern Territorylegislation, and Uluru-Kata Tjuta under commonwealth legislation—and thejoint management-model in place at these parks has been studied at the inter-national level (Stevens, 1997).

Aboriginal environmentalists again led the way during the summer of1982, when another dam was proposed for the Franklin and Gordon rivers insouthwestern Tasmania. Working with white environmental organizationssuch as the Australian National Wilderness Society, which played a critical rolein many of the continent’s major wilderness disputes during the 1980s and1990s, Aborigines used legal arguments concerning ancient land rights to de-feat the proposed hydroelectric development. Relations between the groupsbecame strained shortly thereafter, however, when the Kuku-Yalanji peoplewho inhabited that area supported the creation of a road through the forest.Although the decision to support the road was a difficult one for many whiteenvironmentalists to understand, it has been suggested that it demonstratesthe development of Aboriginal environmentalism and the complexity of theirbelief system. Rather than disavow all development, Aboriginal groups hadbegun to view the environment as a part of a larger political system that had adirect impact on their well-being (Head, 2000).

Entering the twenty-first century, Aboriginal perspectives on environmen-tal protection and land use issues will undoubtedly remain an essential ele-ment in determining the future quality and character of Australian wilderness,


biodiversity, and other aspects of the environment. In 1992 the High Court ofAustralia delivered its landmark Mabo decision, in which it formally recog-nized the legitimacy of Aboriginal land rights, called “native title.” This rulingeffectively rewrote the Australian common law that had long held that whenAustralia was “discovered” by Captain Cook in the eighteenth century, it wasan empty and uncivilized land—terra nullis. It also gave land conservation ad-vocates—whether Aboriginal or white—a potent weapon in the struggle tokeep mining, pastoral, and logging interests out of still-intact natural areas,though opponents have energetically sought to whittle away the practical ap-plication of the judgment (Brennan, 1995; Aplin, 1998).

Australian Environmental Organizations in the 1980s and 1990sEnvironmental activism in Australia continued to evolve during the 1980s and1990s, reaching a stature and power that sparked envy and admiration amongenvironmentalists in most other countries. “In the late 1980s, environmentmovement organizations claimed to have 300,000 members Australia-wide—more than all the members of political parties combined. The environmentmovement could probably have claimed, as the peace movement in the mid-1980s did, to be larger on a per capita basis than its counterparts in the rest ofthe Western world (Hutton and Connors, 1999).

During this period, major international conservation organizations such asthe Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and World WideFund for Nature became firmly established on the continent, employing re-searchers, lobbyists, and public advocates who influenced public policy inways that only industrial or trade union groups had previously been able todo. In addition, some groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth,engaged in more radical forms of activism—from peaceful demonstrations toharassment of visiting nuclear-armed warships—on behalf of the environ-ment. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), founded in 1965, be-came the most prominent of Australia’s national environmental organizationsduring this time as well, engaging in activities ranging from public educationand publishing to research and lobbying (ibid.).

A host of environmental groups also formed at the state and regional level,usually organizing around regional issues in such realms as forest conserva-tion, coastal protection, or watershed health. Most of these groups remainheavily reliant on an urban membership that is nonetheless deeply concernedabout protected areas, biodiversity, air quality, and other issues. Toxic contam-ination and other urban “brown” issues, meanwhile, are most often tackled bylocal city-based volunteer groups, often in alliance with local government


councils and agencies. Finally, the national land management program knownas Landcare, which has sparked the creation of several similar volunteer landstewardship programs such as Dune Care, RiverWatch, Bushcare, and Coast-care, is carried out in large part by local organizations. But the AustralianConservation Foundation has been heavily involved in the Landcare move-ment from its inception, and it remains a heavyweight supporter of the pro-gram in all of its incarnations (Aplin, 1998).

In the political arena, Australia’s dominant electoral systems present formi-dable hurdles for candidates from minority parties—such as the Green Party,which is a significant player in some European countries—hoping to reachelected office. Moreover, the historical single-issue emphasis of Australia’sGreen Party has contributed to its marginal presence on the legislative floor atthe state and commonwealth level. But the Greens have broadened their vi-sion to encompass a greater range of issues in recent years, and they have beena part of coalition governments in Tasmania and elsewhere in the 1990s. Inaddition, environmentalists have constituted an important constituency ofthe Australian Democrats, an emergent and influential “third force” in the na-tion’s politics, which have traditionally been dominated by the AustralianLabor Party (ALP) and the Liberal-National Coalition (LNC) (ibid.).

Environmental Activism on the Pacific IslandsAustralia is by far the largest of the countries in Oceania, accounting for morethan 90 percent of the region’s total land area. It is also the most heavily pop-ulated and commercially developed of the nations of the South Pacific. As aresult of these factors, the country’s history of environmental activism is par-ticularly noteworthy. But environmental activism is also present in mostother Pacific Island states, and in some cases conservation organizations haveemerged as significant players in efforts to address overpopulation, water pol-lution, habitat loss and degradation, and other environmental issues.

New Zealand has a strong legacy of environmental protection and conser-vation, and it is home to numerous environmental organizations. Inter-national environmental groups such as Greenpeace and World Wide Fund forNature have a strong presence in the country, and a multitude of local and re-gional groups have been formed to address issues affecting particular commu-nities and wilderness areas. The country’s tradition of conservation advocacyis reflected in several landmark pieces of legislation passed by the governmentover the past few decades, from the 1980 National Parks Act, which eventuallyallowed one-third of all New Zealand land to receive formal protection withinits protected area system, to the Conservation Reform Act (1990) and theResource Management Act (1991), which outlines initiatives for sustainable


use of the country’s natural resources. “The sustainable management in theRMA emphasizes managing the environmental effects of human activities bypromoting biophysical sustainability but also facilitating project developmentby rationalizing the maze of preceding environmental regulation. As such ithas been a focus that both business and environmentalists have been able tosupport” (Yencken et al., 2000).

The remaining countries of Oceania do not have the advanced economiesand financial resources of Australia and New Zealand, and with the exceptionof Papua New Guinea, none have land resources approaching those of NewZealand, let alone Australia. But for the people who live on these small islandnations, environmental issues are also a pressing concern. Some of these prob-lems can be addressed at the local level, such as population growth rates thatare overwhelming extremely finite natural resources. Other threats, such asglobal climate changes that could result in the submersion of entire island na-tions, originate in distant lands, leaving Oceania-based advocacy groups withfew options other than lobbying the global community to reduce their green-house gas emissions.

Oceania boasts a growing array of dedicated and articulate grassroots or-ganizations intent on addressing various social, economic, and environmentalproblems. Their capacity to meet these challenges has been greatly facilitatedby NGOs that have provided funding and guidance while at the same time“encouraging and empowering the disadvantaged to play a greater role in im-proving their own well-being” (UN Environment Programme, 1999). Inter-national environmental organizations that have played meaningful roles inthis regard include the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, and the World WideFund for Nature.

These and other environment-oriented NGOs operating in Oceania havebeen especially active in the realms of forest conservation and preservation ofindigenous cultures. During the 1980s, concerns about worldwide depletionof rain forest prompted NGOs to examine ways to halt deforestation in thePacific Islands, where many rare and endemic species of flora and fauna exist.Steps taken ranged from heavily publicized antilogging campaigns to educa-tion programs designed to encourage increased investment in ecotourism andsustainable logging activities. “Over the same period, and sometimes withsupport from offshore NGOs, the local movement became more active, espe-cially in [Papua New Guinea] and the Solomon Islands. This local thrust waspartly towards non-wood forest products as a means of providing income forthe forest-owning community, but it also took up the theme of sustainablemanagement. . . . NGOs have also been strongly supportive of policy meas-ures to protect the use of traditional and indigenous knowledge, as in the Suva


Declaration of 1995” (ibid.). Since the mid-1990s, local, national, and interna-tional environmental groups have also pursued conservation and public edu-cation programs designed to protect coral reefs, estuaries, sea turtles, andother marine resources that are essential to the livelihoods of numerousOceanic communities.

Sources:Aplin, Graeme. 1998. Australians and Their Environment: An Introduction to Environ-

mental Studies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.


———. 2001. Australia’s Native Vegetation. Canberra: National Land and WaterResources Audit.


Brennan, F. 1995. One Land, One Nation: Mabo—Towards 2001. Brisbane: Universityof Queensland Press.

Crosby, Alfred. 1986. Ecological Imperialism. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.

Doyle, Timothy. 2000. Green Power: The Environmental Movement in Australia.Kensington: University of South Wales.

Dunlap, Thomas R. 1999. Nature and the English Diaspora: Environment and History inthe United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Oxford: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Environment Australia. 2000. “Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database(CAPAD) 2000.” Available at www.ea.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/2000 (accessedJanuary 9, 2003).

———. “Indigenous Protected Areas.” Available at www.ea.gov.au/indigenous (ac-cessed January 9, 2003).

———. “Parks and Reserves.” Available at www.ea.gov.au/parks (accessed January 9,2003).

Head, Lesley. 2000. Second Nature: The History and Implications of Australia asAboriginal Landscape. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. 1999. A History of the Australian EnvironmentMovement. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

McCormick, J. 1992. The Global Environmental Movement: Reclaiming Paradise.London: Belhaven.

McNeely, J. A., J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall, eds. 1994. Protecting Nature: RegionalReviews of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN-World Conservation Union.

Miller, Char, and Hal Rothman. 1997. Out of the Woods: Essays in EnvironmentalHistory. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.


Mulligan, Martin, and Stuart Hill. 2001. Ecological Pioneers: A Social History ofAustralian Ecological Thought and Action. Melbourne: Cambridge UniversityPress.

New Zealand Department of Conservation. “About Us,” http://www.doc.govt.nz (ac-cessed January 5, 2003).

Pollak, Michael, and Margaret MacNabb. 2000. Hearts and Minds: Creative Australiansand the Environment. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

Rootes, Christopher, ed. 1999. Environmental Movements: Local, National, and Global.London: Frank Cass.

Stevens, Stan. 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples andProtected Areas. Washington, DC: Island Press.

UN Environment Programme. 1999. Pacific Islands Environmental Outlook. Availableat www.unep.org, 1999 (accessed December 4, 2002).

White, Richard. 1981. Inventing Australia. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Yencken, David, et al. 2000. Environment, Education and Society in the Asia-Pacific:Local Traditions and Global Discourses. London: Routledge.


11

Antarctica

W ith an area of about 14 million square kilometers (5.5 million squaremiles), Antarctica is the world’s fifth-largest continent. Larger than

Europe and nearly twice the size of Australia, it covers about one-tenth ofthe earth’s land surface. The continent’s name, which means “opposite to theArctic,” reflects its position as the earth’s southernmost region. Antarctica issurrounded by the Southern Ocean, a 28-million-square-kilometer (10.8-square-mile) body of water formed through the convergence of the southern-most portions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The boundarybetween these major oceans and the Southern Ocean, known as the AntarcticConvergence or Polar Front, is often considered the boundary of the Antarcticregion. Antarctica is located about 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) from SouthAmerica, 2,500 kilometers (1,600 miles) from Australia, and 4,000 kilometers(2,500 miles) from Africa. It was first sighted by explorers in the early nine-teenth century, making it the last continent to be discovered.

Nearly all of the Antarctic continent is covered with ice. The volume of theAntarctic ice sheet has been estimated at 30 million cubic kilometers, whichaccounts for 90 percent of the world’s ice. About 11 percent of the ice sheetconsists of permanent floating ice shelves along the coastline. The largest ofthese, the Ross Ice Shelf, is about the size of France. In addition, Antarctica issurrounded by floating sea ice that forms and melts seasonally. Ice floes coverabout 20 million square kilometers (7.7 million square miles) of the SouthernOcean in the winter, and about 4 million square kilometers (1.5 millionsquare miles) in the summer. Only about 2 percent of the Antarctic continent,or about 280,000 square kilometers (108,000 square miles), is free of ice.These ice-free areas occur mostly along the coastline, particularly on theAntarctic Peninsula, but they also include a few exposed mountain peaks andglacier-carved “dry valleys.” Most of the sub-Antarctic and cool temperate is-lands of the region also remain free of ice. Although small, these ice-free areas

231

are the site of most of the biological activity in the Antarctic region, from birdand seal colonies to human scientific research bases.

Antarctica is widely recognized as having the least hospitable climate onearth. It is the coldest of the world’s continents, with an average annual tem-perature of –30 degrees Celsius. The lowest temperature ever recorded onearth, –89.6 Celsius, occurred at Russia’s Vostok research station in Antarcticain 1983. Antarctica is also the driest continent: the 5-centimeter (2-inch) aver-age annual precipitation on the polar plateau is comparable to the level foundin the world’s hot deserts. It also holds the distinction of being the highestcontinent: its average elevation of 2,300 meters (7,520 feet) is more than twicethe average elevation of Asia, the second-highest continent (AustralianAntarctic Division, “Information about Antarctica,” 2002). Finally, Antarcticais the world’s windiest continent, with an average wind speed of 67 kilometersper hour (42 mph) and high speeds in the neighborhood of 320 kilometers perhour (200 mph). Even daylight in Antarctica comes in extremes: the conti-nent’s interior experiences almost continuous darkness during the wintermonths and nearly continuous daylight during the summer months.

Thanks to its remote location and forbidding climate, Antarctica remainsclean and unspoiled compared with the other continents. It has no permanent


The Ross Ice Shelf at the Bay of Whales. This is the southern-most navigable point on the planet and the

point where Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen started his successful trek to the South Pole in 1911.

MICHAEL VAN WOERT/NOAA

human population, and human activities there are currently limited to explo-ration, scientific investigation, and tourism. Antarctica’s relatively pristine en-vironment makes it tremendously valuable to researchers studying the effectsof pollution on global ecosystems. “The Antarctic is special because it has lesspollution than anywhere else in the world—it doesn’t have any smokestack in-dustry, agricultural activity, or permanent human population,” explainedDavid Walton of the British Antarctic Survey. “We can use it as the baselineagainst which pollution levels in other parts of the world can be measured, totell us whether or not the situation is getting worse. From this point of view,the Antarctic will only remain scientifically valuable if it is managed properlytoday” (Walton, 1999).

Antarctica’s icy mantle has proven particularly useful in studying the effectsof long-range pollutants, such as heavy metals, radioactive debris, and persist-ent organic pollutants (POPs). Pollutants from industrialized regions of theworld are carried to Antarctica in the upper atmosphere or on ocean currents,then deposited on the continent in the form of snow. This snow and the airtrapped within it becomes part of the Antarctic ice sheet, which preserves a his-torical record of changes in the global climate and environment stretchingback 200,000 years (Australian Antarctic Division,“Information about Antarc-tica,” 2002).

Despite its apparent barrenness, Antarctica supports diverse ecosystems ofplants and animals uniquely adapted to survive its harsh environment. Yet thehigh level of specialization found among Antarctic species makes them vul-nerable to changes in their environment, whether caused by the effects ofglobal warming or localized disturbances. “Antarctica is one of the most frag-ile and—so far—unspoiled areas on earth,” said Beth Clark, executive directorof the Antarctica Project, based in Washington, DC. “The choices we makenow will go a long way to deciding whether Antarctica remains the last wilder-ness or becomes just the latest resource” (Mulvaney, 1997).

Development of the Antarctic TreatyThe Antarctic region became the target of a series of European explorers dur-ing the late eighteenth century. In a historic voyage lasting from 1772 to 1775,British navigator James Cook became the first person to cross the AntarcticCircle and circumnavigate the continent of Antarctica. Cook and others tooknote of the large populations of whales and seals that cruised the SouthernOcean, and their reports attracted an influx of hunters hoping to exploit thewealth of the Antarctic waters in the early nineteenth century. The populationof fur seals suffered significantly during this time. In fact, fur seals were elimi-nated from several sub-Antarctic islands by the 1820s.

Antarctica 233

The first national expeditions to Antarctica took place in the mid-nineteenthcentury, and Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen succeeded in reaching theSouth Pole in 1911. Yet the first year-round scientific research stations were notestablished until the 1940s, around the same time that the first mapping of thecontinent was completed. Over the next two decades, various nations raced toestablish bases in order to solidify territorial claims. By the mid-1950s, sevennations held sovereignty claims to portions of Antarctica: Argentina, Australia,Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Three of theseclaims—those of Argentina, Chile, and the U.K.—overlap and are contested.The United States and the Russian Federation reserved the right to make futuresovereignty claims. Most other nations do not recognize any claims on theAntarctic continent. In contrast, most of the sub-Antarctic islands surroundingthe continent are subject to widely recognized national sovereignty.

In 1957, amid fears that the rivalry between the various nations claimingterritory in Antarctica would escalate into direct conflict, twelve nationsagreed to participate in a series of coordinated worldwide scientific researchefforts as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). Research con-ducted in Antarctica during the eighteen-month IGY yielded impressive re-sults and helped begin the process of resolving political disputes over thecontinent. At the conclusion of the IGY, the participating nations establishedthe Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to continue coordi-nated research projects. In 1959 the twelve countries (Argentina, Australia,Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, UnitedKingdom, United States, and USSR) signed the Antarctic Treaty.

The Antarctic Treaty was a groundbreaking agreement that ensured contin-ued scientific cooperation between the signatory parties. It also marked a sig-nificant shift in thinking about Antarctica—away from resource exploitationand toward conservation. Rather than attempting to deal with the questionsof sovereignty, the Antarctic Treaty froze the positions of various nations. Italso demilitarized the Antarctic region and prohibited nuclear explosions andthe disposal of radioactive wastes. The treaty guaranteed freedom of access tothe continent and established it as a “natural reserve, devoted to peace and sci-ence.” The number of parties to the Antarctic Treaty increased from the origi-nal twelve in 1959 to forty-four by 1999. These forty-four nations represent 70percent of the world’s population. Those countries that conduct substantialresearch in Antarctica are known as consultative parties to the treaty, andthose that simply agree to honor its terms are nonconsultative parties.

Several conventions were added to the Antarctic Treaty over the years to ad-dress particular conservation issues. Taken together, the original treaty andthe added conventions are known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The


Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS), passed in 1972,established regulations for commercial sealing in and around Antarctica. Fourspecies of seals were protected from hunting under the convention, and strictlimits were placed on the others. The CCAS also tracks the number of sealsthat are killed for the purpose of scientific research.

The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR), passed in 1980, was intended to address the problem of overfishingin the Southern Ocean. “Exploitation of the Southern Ocean’s marine-basedspecies has . . . had a major effect on ecosystems through the reduction in size ofthe populations of the targeted species, the indirect effects of harvesting such asbycatch, and the removal of so many predators from the ecosystems. Com-mercial harvesting has been the greatest documented human effect on theAntarctic” (Australian Antarctic Division, “Information about Antarctica,”2002). The provisions of CCAMLR identified protected species, set catch limits,established fishing regions, regulated fishing seasons and methods, and col-lected data on the annual catch (UN Environment Programme, 1999).

Protocol on Environmental ProtectionThe most wide-reaching addition to the Antarctic Treaty was the Protocol onEnvironmental Protection of 1991 (also known as the Madrid Protocol, afterthe city in which it was signed). The movement toward stricter environmentalprotection for Antarctica began in the 1970s, when various nations began ex-pressing interest in the continent’s mineral wealth. Although little of Antarc-tica’s land mass has been surveyed for minerals, scientists predict that it holdslarge supplies of gold, copper, lead, zinc, silver, tin, iron ore, chromium, plat-inum, nickel, uranium, coal, and petroleum. The parties to the Antarctic Treatybegan negotiating a mining convention in the early 1980s. Although the con-tinent’s remote location and forbidding climate made mineral exploitationseem impractical at that time, several additional nations rushed to establishbases in Antarctica in order to participate in the talks.

In the mid-1980s, the international environmental group Greenpeace be-came the first nongovernmental organization (NGO) to establish a researchstation in Antarctica. Greenpeace scientists monitored the impact that the na-tional scientific bases were having on the continent’s environment and wildlife.They found evidence of localized pollution and habitat destruction aroundmany bases, including some significant problems caused by the dumping ofwastes, road and airstrip construction, and vehicle pollution (Mulvaney, 1997).By 1988, when the ATS parties developed guidelines for mineral exploration inAntarctica, Greenpeace and other environmental groups had joined in opposi-tion to the measures. Public concern about environmental protection in the

Antarctica 235

polar regions grew in 1989, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the Arcticand the sinking of the Argentine supply and tourist ship Bahia Paraiso offAntarctica, which released 600,000 liters of diesel fuel into the Southern Ocean.

The convention on mining required the agreement of all twenty-six parties tothe ATS in order to pass. Under pressure from citizens and NGOs, France andAustralia refused to allow the rules to be adopted. At this point, the ATS nationschanged their focus to developing an environmental protocol, which theypassed in 1991. The Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty forbidsmineral extraction (except for scientific purposes) for a minimum of fifty years,after which the ban remains in place unless all parties to the treaty agree to re-visit the question. The protocol also sets forth strict standards for pollution pre-vention, waste management and disposal, and the conservation of plants andanimals. Finally, the protocol requires all parties to conduct thorough environ-mental impact assessments for any activity undertaken in Antarctica.

The wording of the protocol stated: “The protection of the Antarctic envi-ronment and dependent and associated ecosystems and the intrinsic value ofAntarctica, including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as anarea for the conduct of scientific research, in particular research essential tounderstanding the global environment, shall be fundamental considerationsin the planning and conduct of all activities in the Antarctic Treaty area” (UNEnvironment Programme, 1996). The standards set forth in this landmarkconvention are among the most stringent conservation rules to be establishedanywhere in the world. In fact, it cost the U.S. government $30 million to cleanup American research stations and bring them into compliance with the pro-tocol (Walton, 1999).

Through the addition of the Madrid Protocol and other conventions, theAntarctic Treaty System gradually expanded its role from scientific oversight toregional governance. Proponents of the ATS claim that it provides an effectivesystem for governing Antarctica in the interests of the international community.The arrangement has come under occasional criticism over the years, however,from developing countries and NGOs that wish to have greater say in theAntarctic region’s affairs. Some critics claim that Antarctica should be governedby the United Nations to ensure the widest possible international input. Theynote that the Antarctic Treaty is binding only upon signatory nations, so othercountries are free to exploit the continent if they can overcome the inherent eco-nomic and technological barriers (Australian Antarctic Division, “Informationabout Antarctica,” 2002). Some NGOs have proposed designating Antarctica asa World Park—a status similar to U.S. national parks, which would give itstronger protection from mining, military activities, and human settlement—but the treaty parties have thus far rejected such efforts (Puri, 1997).


McMurdo Station in Antarctica attracts scientists from all over the world. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

In addition to the ATS, Antarctica is covered under a number of interna-tional environmental treaties dealing with such global issues as depletion ofthe ozone layer, marine pollution, and endangered species. Whaling regula-tions for the Southern Ocean fall under the jurisdiction of the InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC). Furthermore, independent groups such as SCARand the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP)help establish guidelines for their members.

Human ImpactsThe main focus of human activity in Antarctica is scientific investigation. By thelate 1990s, scientists from seventeen nations operated thirty-six stations foryear-round research in Antarctica. The total annual number of scientists on thecontinent increased gradually until it peaked at around 9,000 in 1990, afterwhich it leveled off or declined slightly. Only about 1,000 researchers remain inAntarctica through the winter months each year (UN Environment Pro-gramme, 1996). The largest scientific base in Antarctica is McMurdo Station onRoss Island. Established in 1956, it has grown into a small city with more thana hundred structures, including stores, offices, laboratories, living quarters,powerhouses, and its own harbor and airport. McMurdo’s summer populationexceeds 1,100, though only about 250 scientists and support staff remain overthe winter, when they are often isolated from March through October.

Antarctica’s relatively pristine environment provides scientists with a valu-able baseline against which to compare the effects of pollution in the rest ofthe world. Ice-core studies provide scientists with information about pastglaciations, sea levels, and atmospheric composition. In addition, scientistshave found that Antarctica plays an important role in regulating the earth’sclimate and atmosphere, as well as in determining the composition and flowof the world’s oceans. Research in the Antarctic region has increasingly shiftedtoward global issues, such as ozone depletion and global climate change.Other major areas of study include plate tectonics, movement of the ice sheet,sea-ice dynamics, oceanic circulation, and the biology of the region’s plantsand animals. Finally, some researchers study the effects of the Antarctic envi-ronment on the health of scientists who live and work there.

Most scientific bases are clustered in Antarctica’s few ice-free regions, whichare also home to most of the continent’s fragile plant and animal life. Theearly research stations created some environmental damage, including pollu-tion from waste disposal and oil spills, habitat destruction from constructionand terrain modification, and introduction of exotic organisms. Observersnote that the damage has been extensive in a few localized areas. “Withoutdoubt, the worst-affected place on Antarctica has to be the Fildes Peninsula


[an area on King George Island in the Antarctic Peninsula where several na-tions maintain research stations],” said one Greenpeace representative.“Thereare bases built on moss beds, fuel and chemical drums spilling over onto plantlife, there’s an airstrip, a lake being used as a landfill—it’s appalling. Largemoss beds of the kind that were found at Fildes are incredibly rare inAntarctica; this was a special place, but now it is a mess” (Mulvaney, 1997). Al-though some abuses continue, most Antarctic research is now conductedunder the strict guidelines of the Madrid Protocol.

Tourism is a rapidly growing human use of the Antarctic region. The numberof tourists in Antarctica increased from 4,700 in 1990 to a record 14,700 tenyears later (IAATO, 1999). Most tourists arrive on shipboard cruises that stop atice-free areas along the Antarctic Peninsula or on sub-Antarctic islands.Although most tours feature only brief sightseeing stops on land, some arebroadening the scope of their offerings to include camping, skiing, climbing, seakayaking, and helicopter flights inland (UN Environment Programme, 1996).

Some environmentalists are concerned about the impact of tourism onAntarctica, particularly since tourist activity tends to be concentrated inwildlife-intensive areas during the four-month summer season. They claimthat tourism places stress on the continent’s fragile ecosystems. For example,non-native species of grasses have been introduced to several sites in theAntarctic region, and critics claim that they were likely carried on the clothingof human visitors. “It is important to remember that the Antarctic environ-ment is tremendously sensitive. The conditions are incredibly harsh, andplant life in particular can take many hundreds of years to become estab-lished, so that what might appear to be minimal damage in temperate zonescan have very serious effects,” explained one expert. “Some moss beds on theAntarctic Peninsula have taken three to four hundred years to grow; a singlehuman footprint can cause tremendous damage and remain there as a perma-nent record” (Mulvaney, 1997).

The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) wasformed in 1991 to help minimize the environmental impact of Antarctictourism. The association, which handles the majority of Antarctic tours, in-cludes thirty-five member organizations in ten countries. The IAATO requiresits members to evaluate the environmental impact of all proposed activities inthe region. It also establishes guidelines for tour organizers and promotes acode of behavior for tourists designed to minimize environmental impact. Forexample, tourists are required to scrub the penguin feces off the bottoms oftheir boots after each landing as a means of preventing cross-colony contami-nation. They are also asked to avoid leaving any waste behind, which includesa prohibition against emptying their bladders on shore (Donelly, 2002).

Antarctica 239

Proponents of Antarctic tourism argue that it plays an important role inensuring the conservation of the region. They claim that visiting the conti-nent creates a constituency of thousands of people who take a personal inter-est in working to preserve its ecological integrity (Mulvaney, 1997). In supportof this view, they point out that some Antarctic tours are sponsored by envi-ronmental or scientific organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and theSmithsonian Institution.

Global Climate ChangeThanks to the complex interactions that take place between the continent’s iceand the atmosphere, Antarctica plays an important role in global environmentdynamics. In fact, many experts believe that the Antarctic region providesstrong, early indications of global climate change. Supporters of this theorynote that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, es-pecially carbon dioxide, has increased over the past several decades, largely be-cause of human consumption of fossil fuels and deforestation. They claim thatthese atmospheric changes will result in an increase in global temperatures ofbetween 1 and 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the twenty-first century (Aus-tralian Antarctic Division,“Information about Antarctica,” 2002).

If global warming occurs as these scientists predict, the polar regions areexpected to show the most extreme changes. The ice that covers Antarctica’sland mass and large areas of the Southern Ocean will begin to melt, which willexpose more land and water to the sun. This in turn will increase the absorp-tion of solar energy from the atmosphere (sea ice reflects between 50 and 97percent of the radiation that hits it, while open water reflects only 10 percent),thus creating even warmer temperatures and more melting of ice (ibid.).Some experts claim that this cycle has already begun. As evidence, they pointto the fact that Antarctica has shown an increase in average annual tempera-tures of 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past fifty years—a much faster rate of change than has been experienced in other parts of theworld (“The Melting Continent,” 2002). If this situation were to continue in-definitely, the eventual results could include melting of the polar ice sheets, re-treat of sea ice, thawing of permafrost, and a global rise in sea levels. “Polarregions contain important drivers of climate change,” said one observer.“Once triggered, they may continue for centuries, long after greenhouse gasconcentrations are stabilized, and cause irreversible impacts on ice sheets,global ocean circulation, and sea-level rise” (Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, 1997).

If the earth’s climate continues to grow warmer, experts predict that theAntarctic will suffer more serious effects than even the Arctic. One reason is


that Antarctic sea ice tends to be thinner and more mobile, with more openwater interspersed with it, than Arctic sea ice. This means that global warm-ing could have a considerable impact on the extent and characteristics of seaice in the Southern Ocean. If the sea ice were to diminish significantly, itwould reduce the habitat available to seabirds and marine mammals, affectthe composition and structure of the world’s oceans, and perhaps exacerbatethe problem of global warming.

A wide variety of Antarctic life forms depend on sea ice for their survival.Algae form colonies on the ice floes, and when the ice melts in the springtimethe algae bloom in the water. Algae blooms provide food for a number ofsmall creatures, including crustaceans like krill, which in turn nourish fish,seabirds, and marine mammals. In addition, many marine species rely on thesea ice to provide breeding grounds or resting places where they will be safefrom predators. The mobility of the ice floes makes it difficult to take accuratemeasurements of sea ice, but scientists suspect that several species are alreadysuffering from a reduction in the extent of the ice. For example, the popula-tions of Adelie penguins on the Antarctic peninsula have declined in recentyears, probably because of the loss of habitat and food resulting from the re-treat of sea ice. Some experts predict that global warming may cause Adelies tobe replaced with less ice dependent penguin species, such as Gentoo andChinstrap penguins (Gosnell, 1998).

Antarctica 241

The reduction of Antarctica’s winter sea ice may be one cause of the declining Adelie penguin population.

COREL

The increase in average annual temperatures in the Antarctic region has al-ready caused some notable disintegration of the continent’s ice shelves, partic-ularly in the northern and western parts of the Antarctic Peninsula. As the icebegins to melt, water seeps into tiny cracks and causes them to widen, weaken-ing the structure of the ice. The best-known result of this process was the col-lapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula. This spectacular eventremoved a chunk of ice the size of Rhode Island from the outline of the conti-nent. A small section of the shelf, known as Larsen A, broke off in 1995, leadingscientists to predict the eventual collapse of the remainder of the shelf. Butmany observers were surprised at the rapid disintegration of the 3,250-square-kilometer (1,250-square-mile) Larsen B Ice Shelf over the course of a fewweeks in 2002. The collapse of the 200-meter-thick (650-feet-thick) ice re-leased approximately 720 million tons of floating ice into the Weddell Sea(Larson, 2002). This ice will not affect global sea levels, however, since the shelfwas already floating.

Like these ice shelves, the glaciers on several sub-Antarctic islands have re-treated in recent years. For example, Brown Glacier on Heard Island has de-creased in area by 33 percent and in volume by 38 percent over the pasthalf-century (UN Environment Programme, 1996). Global warming also hasthe potential to affect the ice sheet covering the Antarctic continent. Scientistsbelieve that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is mainly grounded above sealevel, will remain relatively stable. But they feel that the marine-based WestAntarctic Ice Sheet is inherently unstable, making it highly vulnerable to theeffects of warming.

The Hole in the Ozone LayerAntarctica is at the forefront of research and debate over the depletion of theozone layer in the earth’s atmosphere. Ozone, a naturally occurring substancethat forms part of the lower stratosphere, absorbs harmful ultraviolet radia-tion from the sun. Humans have contributed to the loss of atmospheric ozonethrough the release of chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons.These chemicals undergo reactions on clouds in the stratosphere in whichthey are converted into forms that destroy ozone in the presence of sunlight.

Scientists first became aware of the extent of damage to the ozone layer inthe 1970s, when they discovered a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica.The hole has appeared every year since it was first noticed, and it increased insize between 1978 and the mid-1990s. By 1998 it covered an estimated 67 mil-lion square kilometers (26 million square miles) above Antarctica. It has de-creased in size slightly since then, partly as a result of reductions in humanemissions of ozone-depleting chemicals. The ozone hole tends to be largest


in the early spring following a cold winter; the effect generally disappears insummertime, when warming of the atmosphere causes the clouds to dissipate.

The hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica creates an increase in the ul-traviolet (UV) radiation that reaches the earth’s surface, which poses a poten-tial threat to the region’s ecosystems. For example, scientists have found thatphytoplankton in waters outside the extent of the ozone hole show higherproductivity than those inside it. One implication may be that UV-tolerantspecies of plants and animals eventually replace UV-sensitive ones in theAntarctic region (ibid.). On the other hand, some scientists feel that the lossof ozone from the atmosphere above the continent has helped offset some ofthe effects of global warming on the Antarctic environment by acting to coolthe lower atmosphere (Australian Antarctic Division, “Information aboutAntarctica,” 2002).

BiodiversityAntarctica does not support a large variety of species of flora and fauna. Thereare no trees on the continent, for example, and no land mammals, reptiles, oramphibians make their homes there. But Antarctica still makes a significantcontribution to the world’s biodiversity because its life forms have developedunique adaptations to enable them to survive in its harsh environment. Forexample, the blood of some species of Antarctic fish includes chemical com-pounds similar to antifreeze. The region also features single-celled plants thatproduce their own form of sunscreen as an adaptation to the hole in the ozonelayer above Antarctica. As a result of such adaptations, many Antarctic speciesare found nowhere else in the world (ibid.). The high level of specializationfound among Antarctic species also tends to make them more sensitive tohuman impacts on the environment, in the form of bioaccumulation of pol-lutants, global climate change, and increased levels of solar radiation causedby atmospheric ozone depletion.

At first glance, the Antarctic continent appears barren; in fact, its lack ofvegetation forces the region’s wildlife to depend on the ocean for its food(ibid.). A number of factors work against plant life hoping to gain a foothold:all but 2 percent of the land is covered with ice; the continent’s isolation makesit difficult for new species to spread to Antarctica; and the climate is charac-terized by low temperatures, high winds, little precipitation, and seasonaldarkness. Still, Antarctica supports a variety of tiny, hardy plants that havebeen found growing on all known rocky outcrops as well as on and undersnow and ice.

Most of the continent’s terrestrial flora consists of simple organisms. Thereare 500 species of algae, 125 species of lichens, 30 species of mosses, and only 2

Antarctica 243

species of flowering plants. Most of this vegetation is extremely slow growing;some species of lichens may grow a millimeter every 100 years. Although sci-entists continue to conduct ecological studies of Antarctica’s flora, they do notyet have enough information to identify endangered species. The sub-Antarctic islands, many of which are free of ice, support a greater diversity offlora than is found on the continent. Some sub-Antarctic islands contain 30 to40 species of vascular plants, while some of the cool temperate islands of theregion may support up to 150 species. The plant species of both Antarcticaand the surrounding islands show high levels of endemism.

Because of Antarctica’s harsh climate and limited vegetation, the region’sland animals consist of microscopic organisms and primitive insects. Faunaon the continent includes protozoans, nematodes, rotifers, tardigrades,springtails, mites, collembola, and two species of midge. The largest species,the wingless midge, is only about 12 millimeters (0.5 inch) long. These organ-isms can be found in exposed soil, within rocks and ice, in dry streambeds,and in the water of underground lakes. Their ability to withstand extremeconditions has attracted the interest of scientists, who are investigatingwhether the biochemical compounds they produce may have applications inhuman pharmaceuticals.

The sub-Antarctic islands contain a greater diversity of fauna than thecontinent itself, including many rare and endemic species. Several of these is-lands are relatively pristine, while others have suffered significant degrada-tion resulting from human activity. The most damaging problem for someislands was the introduction—whether deliberate or accidental—of alienspecies, such as rodents, cats, sheep, cattle, and reindeer. These species oftenhad a detrimental effect on the seabirds and seals that used the islands asbreeding grounds. Some of the nonindigenous species have been eradicatedin recent years.

Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic islands provide an important feeding andbreeding ground for a variety of seabirds and marine mammals. The region ishome to forty species of seabirds, including three species of penguins, fourspecies of albatross, and twenty species of petrels, as well as cormorants,skuas, gulls, and terns. More than 100 million birds breed along the coastlineof the continent, on the surrounding islands, or on the sea ice each year.Unfortunately, several species have shown declines in recent years. For exam-ple, Adelie penguins have experienced a long-term decline in population ofaround 43 percent (ibid.). Some experts have attributed the drop in Adeliepenguin numbers to the effects of global warming, which may be responsiblefor a reduction in the winter sea ice that the species uses as breeding grounds.


Furthermore, some albatross populations have declined at an unsustain-able rate of 7 percent per year, largely because of unintended mortality fromlongline fishing in the Southern Ocean. In the early 1990s, annual albatrossdeaths through fishing operations were estimated at 44,000 (Brothers, 1991).As a result, several species were given unfavorable conservation status underAppendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals, while the Amsterdam albatross was placed on the list of endan-gered species under Appendix I of the convention.

The marine mammals of the Antarctic region include seven species ofwhales, eight species of dolphins, and seven species of seals. Crabeater seals,which breed in and around Antarctica, have an estimated population of 15million, making them the most numerous large mammals surviving in thewild (Australian Antarctic Division, “Information about Antarctica,” 2002).Antarctica’s marine mammals were heavily exploited by humans in the nine-teenth century. In fact, fur seals were eliminated from many sub-Antarctic is-lands by the 1820s. Most species have recovered from overexploitation underthe protection of the CCAS, however, and no extinctions are known to haveoccurred because of hunting.

About 1.3 million great whales—including blue, fin, humpback, and spermspecies—were harvested in the Antarctic region during the twentieth century.Exploitation of these marine mammals had a significant impact on the bio-logical makeup of the Southern Ocean. The International Whaling Commis-sion voted for an indefinite global moratorium on whaling in the SouthernOcean in 1982. In 1994 the IWC established the Southern Ocean WhaleSanctuary, in which commercial whaling was prohibited. Despite such protec-tion, which was afforded over the objections of Japan, the populations of sev-eral species have been slow to recover. In 2001, however, IWC proposals tocreate new whale sanctuaries in the South Pacific and South Atlantic were de-feated by Japan, Norway, and other prowhaling nations.

Scientists have limited knowledge of the deep sea around Antarctica, butthey know that the continental shelves and slopes of the Southern Oceansupport a variety of fish species. Some taxonomic groups are poorly repre-sented in the Southern Ocean, including mollusks and bottom-dwelling fish.But other groups are well represented, including crustaceans and sponges.One of the most important species in the Southern Ocean is krill—small,shrimplike, free-swimming crustaceans that provide a key food source formost Antarctic seabirds and marine mammals, including whales, seals, andpenguins (UN Environment Programme, 1996). Krill holds the distinctionof being the multicellular animal with the greatest biomass on earth, at an

Antarctica 245

estimated 500 million tons. Overfishing is the main threat facing the SouthernOcean. Several heavily exploited species are protected under CCAMLR, butabuses continue.

FreshwaterThe Antarctic ice sheet contains between 60 and 70 percent of the world’sfreshwater (ibid.). For the most part this water remains inaccessible, thoughSaudi Arabia and some other nations have investigated the possibility oftransporting icebergs north out of the Southern Ocean in order to claim thefreshwater locked inside them. The continent also features a number offreshwater and saline lakes in coastal areas and ice-free regions, such as theLarsemann Hills, Bunger Hills, Vestfold Hills, and Schirmacher Oasis. Thefreshwater lakes are generally fed by glacier melt streams, and their bottomwaters can sometimes reach temperatures of 35 degrees Celsius due to warm-ing from the sun (UN Environment Programme, 1999). Small lakes formedfrom melt water can occasionally be found inland on the surface of the Ant-arctic ice sheet. There are also several large lakes located deep beneath the icesheet in the central part of the continent. These lakes are of particular inter-est to scientists because they have not been exposed to the atmosphere forhalf a million years (ibid.).

The lakes in Antarctica’s ice-free areas are environmentally fragile, yet theyare often at the center of human activities. This situation has led to contami-nation of several lakes over the years. For example, one lake in the LarsemannHills suffered severe degradation when a nearby research station used it forwaste disposal and generator cooling. Similarly, Lake Glubokoye onSchirmacher Oasis now contains high levels of phosphorus on account ofdumping of wastewater by a nearby Russian station. ATS parties have at-tempted to address such problems by developing an environmental code ofconduct specific to research operations in ice-free areas. Meanwhile, somelakes have suffered degradation resulting from natural processes. For exam-ple, some lakes on the islands of the Antarctic Peninsula have undergone eu-trophication as a result of increasing populations of seals transferring marinenutrients to their waters.

Oceans and Coastal AreasAntarctica is surrounded by the Southern Ocean, which is formed throughthe convergence of the southernmost parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indianoceans. Although it could be considered an extension of these major oceans,most scientists designate the Southern Ocean as a separate body of water be-cause of its marked differences in temperature and salinity. At 28 million


square kilometers (11 million square miles), the Southern Ocean accounts for10 percent of the world’s oceans.

The oceanographic boundary dividing the Southern Ocean from its north-ern counterparts is the Antarctic Convergence, or Polar Front. This bound-ary—which is a few kilometers wide and ranges from 47 to 62 degrees southlatitude—marks the zone where cold, dense, northward-drifting Antarcticsurface waters sink below warmer, southward-drifting sub-Antarctic waters.The Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which has four times the volume of theGulf Stream, flows from west to east between the continent and the AntarcticConvergence. This current drives a gradual exchange of heat, oxygen, carbondioxide, and nutrients between the oceans (Australian Antarctic Division,“Information about Antarctica,” 2002).

Although little of its surface is permanently covered by ice, the SouthernOcean undergoes extreme seasonal fluctuations in ice cover. Antarctic sea iceextends over an area of around 4 million square kilometers (1.5 million squaremiles) in the summer, but increases its coverage to nearly 20 million square kilo-meters (7.7 million square miles) in winter (Allison, 1997). Scientists have dis-covered that sea ice plays an important role in global oceanic composition andcirculation. When ice covers the Southern Ocean during the winter months,salt is extruded from the ice into the water below. This water becomes very

Antarctica 247

Nearly seven times the amount of ice covers the Southern Ocean in the winter than in the summer months.

COREL

dense as a result of its high saline content and sinks to the ocean floor. It even-tually spreads throughout the world’s oceans, helping to create vertical circula-tion and driving major currents (Australian Antarctic Division, “Informationabout Antarctica,” 2002). When the ice melts, it deposits freshwater on the sur-face of the ocean, further changing the composition of the water. Furthermore,sea ice has an effect on global climate: the ice reflects more solar radiation thanthe underlying water, thus inhibiting the exchange of heat and energy betweenthe ocean and the atmosphere.

The continent of Antarctica features more than 23,000 kilometers (8,900square miles) of coastline. Around 40 percent of this coastline is composed ofice sheets. Ice formed in the middle of the continent gradually creeps outwardtoward the coasts, where it breaks off to form icebergs. Although the calving oficebergs is a natural process, some of Antarctica’s floating ice shelves—partic-ularly in the northern and western parts of the Antarctic Peninsula—have dis-integrated at an unprecedented rate in recent years. Scientists have associatedthis phenomenon with a regional increase in average annual temperatures of2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past fifty years, which inturn may be related to global climate change.

Probably the most serious threat facing Antarctica’s marine resources isoverharvesting of a few key commercially valuable species, including thePatagonian and Antarctic toothfish, mackerel icefish, krill, and squid. Finfishharvesting in the Antarctic region began in 1969, and more than 3 milliontons were reported caught over the next twenty years (UN EnvironmentProgramme, 1996). The fishery began to decline in the late 1980s, however, onaccount of overharvesting. Krill harvesting began in 1972, and the total takethrough the end of the century was estimated at over 5 million tons. By theearly years of the new millennium, economic factors had reduced the marketfor krill, which was used for human consumption as well as to feed farmedfish, and the annual krill catch averaged around 90,000 tons per year. Thisamount was less than 10 percent of the annual catch allowed under CCAMLR,which is set at 10 percent of the estimated total krill biomass. Squid was har-vested by the United Kingdom through 1989, but the species has not been ac-tively pursued in the Antarctic region since that time (ibid.).

The annual takes of these species are regulated under the CCAMLR, whichentered into force in 1982 and was updated in 1989 to include more stringentrules intended to halt the decline of fish stocks. But critics claim that some ofthe catch limits were set without taking biological data into account.Furthermore, illegal and unreported fishing is a problem. For example, the re-ported legal catch of Patagonian toothfish for 1997 was 10,245 tons, but the il-legal catch for the same year was estimated at more than 107,000 tons in the


Indian Ocean section of the Southern Ocean alone (CCAMLR, 1998). In fact,some nations are suspected of reflagging their fishing fleets in countries thatare not parties to CCAMLR in order to circumvent the rules.

Environmentalists are also concerned about the problem of bycatch, par-ticularly the deaths of albatrosses and petrels from longline fishing opera-tions. In addition, scientists are monitoring the effects of bottom trawling onthe Southern Ocean. Bottom trawling, which is the primary method used infinfishing, involves dragging fishing gear along the seafloor, which disturbssediments and may harm slow-growing communities of bottom-dwelling or-ganisms. In recent years, measures have also been put in place to reduce theamount of debris left behind by fishing vessels in order to protect Antarcticspecies. For example, boats are forbidden to use plastic packaging bands to se-cure bait boxes, since these bands can be hazardous to seabirds (UN En-vironment Programme, 1996).

“The Antarctic has suffered a great deal of exploitation, particularly inthe Southern Ocean,” said Beth Clark of the Antarctic Project. “Despite that,the continent at least still remains essentially pristine. The big question iswhether it’s going to be allowed to stay that way. Nobody’s saying thatAntarctica should be completely off-limits to human activity. Not many arearguing that there should be no commercial fishing in the Southern Ocean.Right now, we have a choice: we can continue the way we are going, exploit-ing resources throughout the world and moving into the Antarctic whennowhere else is left. Or we can decide that one part of the world, at least, isgoing to be treated differently, left largely alone and allowed to remain theway it has been for millions and millions of years” (Mulvaney, 1997).

SourcesAllison, I. 1997. “Physical Processes Determining the Antarctic Sea Ice Environment.”

Australian Journal of Physics 50.

———. 2002. “Antarctic Ice and the Global Climate System,” Australian AntarcticMagazine 3 (autumn).

Australian Antarctic Division (AAD). 2002. “Antarctica, Planet Earth: Looking afterthe Antarctic Environment.” Australian Antarctic Magazine 3.

———. “Information about Antarctica.” Available at http://www.antdiv.gov.au/information/ (accessed November 2002).

Brothers, N. 1991. “Albatross Mortality and Associated Bait Loss in the JapaneseLongline Fishery in the Southern Ocean.” Biological Conservation 55.

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).1998. “Report of the CCAMLR Observer to ATCM.” Information Paper No.64. Lima, Peru: Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

Antarctica 249

Donelly, Joanne. 2002. “Crowd Control: More People than Ever Are Heading toAntarctica to Get Away from It All. But Should They Really Be Allowed toHoliday on this Pristine Land?” Geographical (January).

Gosnell, Mariana. 1998. “Meltdown? Sea Ice May Be Thawing, Which Could MeanDisruption of Life at Earth’s Polar Ends.” International Wildlife (July–August).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1997. The Regional Impacts ofClimate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC.

International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). 1999. “Overview ofAntarctic Activities.” Information Paper No. 98. Lima, Peru: Antarctic TreatyConsultative Meeting.

Larson, Vanessa. 2002. “Larsen B Ice Shelf Breaks off from Antarctic Peninsula.” WorldWatch (July–August).

2002. “The Melting Continent.” Environment (May).

Monastersky, Richard. 1998. “Antarctic Ozone Hole Reaches Record Size.” ScienceNews (October 17).

Mulvaney, Kieran. 1997. “The Last Wild Place.” E (November–December).

Puri, Rama. 1997. Antarctica: A Natural Reserve. Shimla, India: Indian Institute ofAdvanced Study.

Simpson, Sarah. 2002. “Melting Away: The Shrinking of an Immense Swath ofAntarctic Ice Threatens to Raise Sea Level—and There May Be No StoppingIt.” Scientific American (January).

UN Environment Programme (UNEP). 1996. Question of Antarctica: State of theEnvironment in Antarctica. Report of the Secretary General to the 51st Sessionof the UN General Assembly, September 20, Christchurch, NZ.

———. Global Environmental Outlook 2000. 1999. London: Earthscan.

Walton, David. 1999. “Antarctica’s Tainted Horizons.” UNESCO Courier (May).


AppendixINTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND

DEVELOPMENTAL AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PROGRAMS

ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

African-Eurasian Migratory WaterbirdAgreement (AEWA)

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/AEWA/index2.html

Albertine Rift Conservation Society (ARCOS)

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/arcos/

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

http://www.asean.or.id/

Biodiversity Planning SupportProgramme (BPSP)

http://www.undp.org/bpsp/

BirdLife International (BI)http://www.birdlife.net

Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI)

http://www.bgci.org.uk/

CAB International (CABI)http://www.cabi.org/

Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

http://www.cifor.org/

Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN)

http://www.grida.no/caff/cpanstratplan.htm

Commission for Environment Cooperation (CEC) (North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation)

http://www.cec.org/

Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA)

http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/default.htm

Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD)

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm

Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), World Trade Organization

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_e.htm

Conservation International (CI)http://www.conservation.org/

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

http://www.cgiar.org/

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

http://www.biodiv.org/

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

http://www.cites.org/

251

Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/cms

European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC)

http://www.ecnc.nl/

European Community (EC)http://europa.eu.int/

European Environment Agency (EEA)

http://www.eea.eu.int/

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)http://www.fscoax.org/index.html

Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD)

http://www.field.org.uk/

Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD)

http://www.gsf.de/UNEP/glasod.html

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

http://www.gbif.org

Global Coral ReefMonitoring Network (GCRMN)

http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/gcrmn/

Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000), UN Food and Agriculture Organization

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp

Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), UN Environment Programme

http://www.giwa.net/

Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP)

http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Gisp/index.html

Global Resource Information Database (GRID), UN Environment Programme

http://www.grid.no

Inter-American BiodiversityInformation Network (IABIN)

http://www.iabin.org/

Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission (IOC), UN Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization

http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/

International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM)

http://www.cgiar.org/iclarm/

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)

http://www.icraf.cgiar.org/

International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG)

http://www.nih.gov/fic/programs/icbg.html

International Coral ReefAction Network (ICRAN)

http://www.icran.org

International Coral ReefInformation Network (ICRIN)

http://www.environnement.gouv.fr/icri/index.html

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

http://www.ices.dk/

International Council for Science (ICSU)http://www.icsu.org/

252 Appendix

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

http://www.ifpri.org/

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

http://www.ifad.org/

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)

http://www.igbp.kva.se/

International Institute ofTropical Agriculture (IITA)

http://www.iita.org

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

http://www.imo.org/

International Rivers Network (IRN)http://www.irn.org/

International Union ofBiological Sciences (IUBS)

http://www.iubs.org/

Man and the Biosphere Program MAB),UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

http://www.unesco.org/mab/index.htm

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)http://www.msc.org/

Organization of African Unity (OAU)http://www.oau-oau.org/

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

http://www.oecd.org/

Ozone Secretariat Homepagehttp://www.unep.ch/ozone/

Pan-European Biological and LandscapeDiversity Strategy (PEBLDS)

http://www.strategyguide.org/

Program for the Conservation ofArctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF),Arctic Council

http://www.grida.no/caff/

Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW)

http://www.cep.unep.org/law/cartnut.html

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance (RAMSAR)

http://www.ramsar.org/

South African Development Community (SADC)

http://www.sadc.int/

South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP)

http://www.sprep.org.ws/

Species Survival Commission (SSC),World Conservation Union

http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/index.htm

TRAFFIC (the joint wildlife trade monitoring programme of World Wide Fund for Nature and World Conservation Union)

http://www.traffic.org

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS)

http://www.unchs.org

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

http://www.unicef.org

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, June 1992

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

http://www.unctad.org/

Appendix 253

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

http://www.unccd.int/main.php

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

http://www.undp.org/

United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

http://www.unesco.org/

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

http://www.unep.org/

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

http://www.fao.org/

United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

http://www.unfccc.de/index.html

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

http://www.unido.org/

World Agricultural Information Centre (WAIC), UN Food and Agriculture Organization

http://www.fao.org/waicent/search/default.htm

World Bank (WB)http://www.worldbank.org

World Commission on Dams (WCD)

http://www.dams.org/

World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), World Conservation Union

http://www.wcpa.iucn.org/

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)

http://www.unep-wcmc.org

World Conservation Union (IUCN)

http://www.iucn.org/

World Health Organization (WHO)http://www.who.int

World Heritage Convention (WHC)http://www.unesco.org/whc/index.htm

World Resources Institute (WRI)http://www.wri.org/wri/

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD),Johannesburg, South Africa,September 2002

http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/

World Trade Organization (WTO)http://www.wto.org/

World Water Council (WWC)http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

http://www.panda.org/

WorldWatch Institutehttp://www.worldwatch.org/

254 Appendix

Index

Aboriginal peoples. See Australian

Aboriginal peoples

Acid rain, 186

Acidification, 130

Adnyamathanha, 64

Agriculture, 97–120

alien introduced species and,

106–107

in Australia, 97–108

biotechnological research, 115

conservation policies and

programs, 106–108

environmental impacts, 98–101,

105, 115

estuarine pollution, 154

genetically modified (GM)

products, 104–105

global warming impacts, 201

land clearing, 29, 99, 101

livestock operations, 99,

101–102

in New Zealand, 108–110

organic management, 108

in Pacific Islands states, 45, 98,

110–116

resources, 97–98

subsistence, 99, 111

water pollution, 125

water use, 9, 123, 125

wetlands loss and, 160

See also Australia, agriculture in;

Irrigation; Pacific Island nations,

agriculture in

Air quality, 185–206

Australia, 186–188

coal combustion emissions, 168

fires and, 191

motor vehicle emissions, 186–187,

189, 194

New Zealand, 188–191

Pacific Island states, 191

stratospheric ozone depletion,

191–194

See also Greenhouse gas emissions

Algal blooms, 125, 128, 154, 155

Alien species. See Invasive species

American Samoa, 16, 17

fishing industry, 152–153


protected areas, 70

See also Samoa

Antarctic Treaty System (ATS),

234–235

Antarctica, 231–250

biodiversity, 241, 243–246

climate, 232

early exploration, 233–234

fisheries, 248–249

freshwater resources, 246

geography, 231

255

Antarctica (continued)

global warming effects, 240–242,

245, 248

human impacts, 235, 238–240

oceans and coastal areas, 246–249

ozone layer, 242–243

Protocol on Environmental

Protection, 235–236

scientific value, 233, 238

sovereignty claims, 234

stratospheric ozone loss, 191

sub-Antarctic protected areas, 63,

66, 161–162

tourism, 239–240

Anti-uranium movement, 219

Aotearoa, 136. See also New Zealand

Aquaculture, 149

Aquifers, 132–134, 139–140

Artists, 211

Association of Small Island

States, 163

Australia, 1, 146

air quality, 186–188

biodiversity, 26, 29–33, 60

coastal development trends, 153

deforestation rate, 82

early exploration and scientific

inquiry, 209–211

economy, 4–6

energy resources and

consumption trends, 169–174,

196

extinct species, 38–41

forests, 8, 30, 33, 61, 73–76, 81–86

general land degradation, 8

global warming and, 195–198

greenhouse gas emissions,

195–197

hydroelectric power generation,

135

independence from Britain, 207

invasive species, 31, 32, 42–43,

106–107

Kyoto Protocol and, 171, 186,

195, 197

land use trends, 8–11

mangrove forests, 74, 160

marine fisheries, 148–149

marine flora and fauna, 160–161

marine pollution, 153–157

marine protected areas, 10,

161–162

mining industry, 4–7

national oceans policy, 157

ocean territory, 147

parks and protected areas, 9–10,

42–43

population, 1–2, 6–7, 58, 185

protected forests, 81–82

renewable energy use, 167,

172–173

resource consumption trends, 5–6

threatened or endangered species,

30–31, 33, 58, 60

transportation sector trends,

174–175, 186–187

urban and suburban growth, 2

See also Tasmania

Australia, agriculture in, 9, 97–108

conservation policies and

programs, 106–108

crops, 102–104

environmental impacts, 98–101

genetically modified (GM)

products, 104–105

land use, 101

256 Index

LandCare, 99, 107, 226

livestock production, 101–102

water use, 123

Australia, environmental

movements. See Environmental

activism

Australia, parks and protected areas,

53–65

conservation programs and

priorities, 59–63

expansion, 63

extent and categories, 53–56

indigenous areas, 62, 63–65

management and oversight, 56–57

marine protected areas, 54, 56,

62, 63

threats, 57–59

tourism and, 58–59

Australia, water resources, 121–135

cross-border resource

management, 127

dams, 124

drought, 122

groundwater resources, 132–134

Murray-Darling Basin, 123,

125–126

pollution, 127–130

precipitation patterns, 121, 122

salinity, 130–131

Snow River restoration, 135–136

surface runoff, 121–122

water use, 5, 123–127

Australian Aboriginal peoples

early racist characterization and

treatment, 209–210

environmentalism and, 210,

214–216, 223–225

forest beliefs and practices, 81

indigenous protected areas, 62,

63–65

land rights movement, 217–218,

224, 225

Midnight Oil and, 221

national park management, 224

Australian Centre for Renewable

Energy (ACRE), 172

Australian Conservation Foundation

(ACF), 61, 136, 222, 225

Australian Conservation League,

217

Australian Environmental

Protection Act, 219

Australian National Parks and

Wildlife Service, 219

Australian National Wilderness

Society, 224

Australian Ornithologist Union, 214

Banks, Joseph, 209

Biodiversity, 25–26

agricultural impacts, 105

bird and feather trade and,

213–214

cloning program, 38–40

conservation priorities, 60

conservation programs, 33, 37

economic value, 27

endemism, 25–26, 33, 37, 44, 45,

46, 47, 148, 244

global warming effects, 47, 195, 244

logging impacts, 41

marine species, 46, 160–161

national policies, 28

non-native species and, 31, 34–35,

42–43, 107, 125–126, 244. See

also Invasive species

Index 257

258 Index

Biodiversity (continued)

overall assessment, 26, 28

research, 26

wildlife corridors, 61

See also Extinct species

Biodiversity, regional trends,

29–48

Antarctica, 241, 243–246

Australia, 26, 29–33, 60

Melanesia, 40–46

New Zealand, 33–37, 67

Polynesia and Micronesia, 46–47

See also specific countries, regions

Biofuels, 178

Bird and feather trade, 213–214

Brown tree snake, 47

Bushwalkers movement, 214, 218

Butterflies, 40

Carbon dioxide emissions, 168, 180,

194, 199–200. See also

Greenhouse gas emissions

Carbon tax, 200

Carp, 125–126

Carson, Rachel, 217

Cassowary, 58

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),

192–193, 194, 242

Clear-cutting, 82–83, 85

Cloning, 38–40

Coal, 168

air quality and, 187

Australian resources, 169, 171, 196

extraction and transport impacts,

168

greenhouse gas emissions, 196

New Zealand use, 175

Coastal development trends, 153

Coastal protected areas, 9–10

Co-generation power plants, 177

Cook, James, 209, 233

Cook Islands, 16, 17, 146

agriculture, 116

forests, 90


protected areas, 67

socioeconomic conditions, 20

Coral reefs, 158–160

exotic invasive species and, 159

Great Barrier Reef, 51, 56,

156–159, 162, 218

Cotton production, 103–104

Cyanide, 6

Dairy farming, 102, 109

Dams, 124, 138–139, 178

opposition movements, 218, 224

Darwin, Charles, 210

DDT, 157

Deer ranching, 109

Dhimurru, 64

Driftnet ban, 147

Drought, 122, 202

Dunphy, Myle, 213

Ecotourism, 58–59

El Niño-Southern Oscillation

phenomenon, 122, 200, 202

Emu, 30

Endemism, 25–26, 33, 37, 44, 45, 46,

47, 148, 244

Energy issues, 167

Australian resources and

consumption trends, 6, 169–171,

196

carbon tax, 200


fossil fuel dependence, 168

motor vehicle fuel consumption,

174–175, 180

New Zealand resources and

consumption trends, 175–180

Pacific Island states, 182–183

renewable sources, 167, 172–173,

175–180

See also Air quality; Coal;

Greenhouse gas emissions;

Natural gas; Oil; Renewable

energy; Transportation

Environment Australia, 10

Environmental activism, 207–229

Aboriginal peoples and, 210,

214–218, 223–225

anti-millinery movement,

213–214

antinuclear power, 170

anti-uranium campaign, 219

Bushwalkers movement, 214,

218

early conservation (1880–1960),

211–216

early scientific organizations, 212

environmental artists, 211

forest protection, 79, 82

green bans, 223

historical context, 207–216

labor movement and, 223

Little Desert Campaign, 216–217

Maori and, 15

national parks movement, 213

NGOs, 216, 225–226, 227

1960s environmentalism, 216–218

1970s “mainstreaming,” 218–219

opposition to dams, 218, 224

Pacific Islands environmentalism,

226–228

Peter Garrett and, 221–222

Espiritu Santo, 45. See also Vanuatu

Estuarine pollution, 154

Eutrophication, 128, 154

Exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 67,

146

whale sanctuaries, 70

Exotic species. See Invasive species

Extinct species

Australia, 30, 31

New Zealand, 27, 35

Pacific Islands, 46, 47

Tasmanian tiger cloning program,

38–40

Feather trade, 213–214

Federated States of Micronesia, 16,

17, 146

agriculture, 115

forests, 90


global warming impacts, 163, 202


Fiji, 16, 17, 140, 146

agriculture, 47, 99, 113–115

extinct species, 47


forests, 47, 89, 92

freshwater resources, 140, 141


hydroelectric power, 182

independence, 207

mangrove forests, 75

marine pollution, 157

protected areas, 69, 70


Index 259

260 Index

Fiji (continued)

soil quality, 99

threatened species, 28

Fires

air quality impacts, 191

forest vulnerability, 85

land clearing, 77–78, 81, 85, 90, 101

Fisheries, 148–153

Antarctic waters, 248–249

aquaculture, 149


driftnet ban, 147

foreign fleets, 150–152

invasive species, 41, 125–126


overfishing, 149, 151


sovereignty and control, 146–147

Forests, 73–95

Aboriginal peoples and, 81

Australia, 8, 30, 61, 73–76, 81–86

biodiversity, 33

clearing, 77–78, 82–83, 85, 90

conservation efforts, 76, 227

extent, 73

Fiji, 47

fire vulnerability, 85

historical trends, 76, 81

invasive species and, 86

land tenure system, 92

logging bans, 88

mining impacts, 44

New Caledonia, 44

New Zealand, 12, 34, 66, 74–76,

86–88, 199

non-wood products, 92–93

old growth loss, 75–79

ownership, 83, 87

Pacific Island states, 70, 88–93, 227

Papua New Guinea, 40–41, 73, 89,

90, 227

plantations, 76, 78, 81, 87–88, 92

Regional Forest Agreements

(RFAs), 61, 78, 83–85

regional trends, 75–93

resources, 73–75

sustainable management models, 87

Vanuatu, 45

woodchipping old-growth forests,

77–79

See also Logging; Mangrove forests

Forests, reserves, and protected

areas. See Protected areas

Fossil fuels, 168–174

French Polynesia, 16, 17, 146

agriculture, 116

coral reefs, 159


protected areas, 70


Freshwater, 121–144

agricultural use and impacts, 9,

123, 125

Antarctic resources, 246

dams, 124, 138–139, 178

drought, 122

global warming effects, 122, 202

Maori beliefs, 15


125–126

New Zealand, 134, 137–140

pollution, 127–130

salinity, 130–131

See also Australia, water resources;

Water pollution

Friends of the Earth, 216, 219, 225

Garnet, Ros, 213

Garrett, Peter, 221–222

Genetically modified (GM)

products, 104–105

Gibbs, May, 215

Global climate change, 162–164,

185, 194

Antarctica and, 240–242, 245,

248

Australia and, 122–123, 195–198

biodiversity impacts, 47, 195, 244

local preparations, 203–204

moral issues, 193


Pacific Island impacts, 201–204

potential beneficial impacts, 201

sea level rise, 47, 162–164, 198,

201, 203

temperature rise, 162, 194–195,

198, 240–241

See also Greenhouse gas

emissions; Kyoto Protocol;

Ozone layer

Glover, John, 211

Gordon, Adam Lindsay, 211

Grasslands, 8, 12, 29, 60

Grazing, 99

Great Artesian Basins, 132–134

Great Barrier Reef, 156–159, 218

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 51,

56, 162, 218

Green bans, 223

Green Party, 226

Greenhouse gas emissions, 168, 185


Kyoto Protocol, 171, 179, 186, 195,

197–199

moral issues, 193

motor vehicle sources, 180, 187,

194


Greenpeace, 216, 225, 226

Groundwater



Pacific Islands, 140

seawater intrusion, 139–140

Guam, 16, 17, 146

invasive species, 47


Gurig, 224

Hawaii, 26

Hean, Brenda, 218

Heard Island, 63, 161

Heathlands, 29

Herbert, Xavier, 218–219

Hydroelectric power, 124, 135,

138, 170

New Zealand system, 175–176,

178, 179

Pacific Island systems, 182

Indigenous peoples of Australia. See

Australian Aboriginal peoples

Indigenous peoples of New

Zealand. See Maori people

Indigenous protected areas, 62,

63–65

Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), 194,

203

Invasive species, 46

Australia, 31, 32, 106–107, 155

biodiversity impacts, 107

coral reefs and, 159

Index 261

262 Index

Invasive species (continued)

fish, 125–126

forest ecosystems and, 86

national parks and, 42–43


Pacific Islands, 47

Papua New Guinea, 41

rabbits, 106–107

sub-Antarctic Islands, 244

Irrigation

Australian water use, 123, 125

freshwater impacts, 130, 132

Jindyworobak school, 215

Kakadu National Park, 42–43, 59, 224

Kiribati, 16, 17, 140, 146

forests, 90


protected areas, 67


Krill, 241, 245, 248

Kyoto Protocol, 171

Australia and, 186, 195, 197

New Zealand and, 179, 195,

198–199

Labor Party, environmentalism

and, 223

Land degradation

agricultural impacts, 99, 105, 115

general trends (Australia), 8–9

government policy, 10

Pacific Islands, 21

Land tenure system, 92

Land use

Australia, 8–11

government policies, 10

land clearing, 29, 99, 101

New Zealand, 12

Pacific Islands, 20–22

See also Agriculture; Forests;

Mining

LandCare, 99, 107, 226

Linnean Society, 214

Litter, 155, 157


Livestock, 99, 101–102, 108–109, 111

Logging

Australian opposition, 82

bans, 88

biodiversity threats, 41

coral reef impacts, 158

economic value, 85

forest loss and, 76


water quality impacts, 128, 130,

141

woodchipping old-growth forests,

77–79

See also Forests

Madrid Protocol, 235–236

Maldives, global warming impacts,

163

Malekule, 45. See also Vanuatu

Mangrove forests, 69, 74–75, 89, 160

Maori people, 11, 13–15

Treaty of Waitangi, 67

urban population, 14

water belief system, 15

Mariana Islands, 159. See also

Northern Mariana Islands

Marine protected areas (MPAs)

Australia, 10, 54, 56, 62, 63,

161–162

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,

51, 56, 162, 218

New Zealand, 67


whale sanctuaries, 70, 245

See also Coral reefs; Mangrove

forests

Marshall, A. J., 217

Marshall Islands, 16, 17, 140, 145,

146

agriculture, 115

forests, 90


protected areas, 68


McDonald Islands, 63, 161–162

McMurdo Station, 238

Melanesia, 16, 88, 146

agriculture, 110–115

biodiversity, 40–46

See also Pacific Island nations;

Papua New Guinea; specific

islands or states

Methane emissions, 194, 199

Methyl bromide, 192–193

Micronesia, 16, 88, 146




specific islands or states

Midnight Oil, 221–222

Miller, Meg, 218

Mimosa pigra, 42–43

Mining, 4


coral reefs and, 158


forest impacts, 44

future of, 7

Madrid Protocol for Antarctica,

235–236

site rehabilitation, 6

Moa, 27, 33

Molloy, Georgiana, 210–211


125–126

Nantawarrina, 64

National Land Management

Program, 99, 107, 226

National parks, 51

Aboriginal joint management,

224

in Australia, 9, 51, 54, 59, 219

category II protected areas, 53

historical development, 213

infrastructure, 59

invasive plants, 42–43

in New Zealand, 37, 65–66, 226

Solomon Islands, 69

See also Marine protected areas;

Protected areas; specific parks

National Parks and Primitive Areas

Council, 213

National Pollutant Inventory, 188

National Strategy for Ecologically

Sustainable Development, 10

Native Bird Protection Society, 214

Natural gas, 168

Australian resources, 170, 171

New Zealand use, 175

Natural Heritage Trust, 10

Nauru, 16, 17, 140, 146

population, 19

protected areas, 68


Index 263

New Caledonia, 16, 17, 146

agriculture, 112

biodiversity, 25, 44

forests, 44, 76, 89, 92






New Zealand, 1, 146


air quality, 188–191

Aotearoa, 136

biodiversity, 26, 27, 33–37

Biodiversity Strategy, 67

bird protection movement,

214

dams, 138

energy resources and

consumption, 175–176

environmental activism, 226

environmental policy, 15

exclusive economic zone, 67

extinct species, 35

forests, 12, 34, 66, 74, 75–76,

86–88, 199

freshwater resources, 134,

137–140

global warming and, 198–201

greenhouse gas emissions, 2,

199–200

groundwater aquifers, 139–140

hydroelectric power system,

175–176, 178, 179

independence from Britain, 207

indigenous people. See Maori

people

invasive species, 34–35

Kyoto Protocol ratification, 195,

198–199

land use, 12

livestock production, 108–109

marine resources, 147–149

parks and protected areas, 37

population, 11–12, 185

precipitation, 134, 136–137

protected areas, 65–67, 86

renewable energy use, 167,

175–180

stratospheric ozone loss, 191–192

threatened or endangered species,

28, 35, 37

transport sector, 180–182, 189

urbanization, 11

wetlands, 138

Ngaanyatjarra, 63

Nitmiluk, 224

Nitrogen oxides, 187, 194

Niue, 16, 17

forests, 90


protected areas, 70

Nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs), 216, 225–226, 227, 236

Northern Mariana Islands, 16, 17, 146

Nuclear power, 170


Oceania, 1

independence from colonial

powers, 207

subregions, 16, 146

territorial sovereignty, 146–147

See also Australia; New Zealand;

Pacific Island nations; specific

countries, islands, subregions

264 Index

Oceans and coastal areas, 145–165

alien species, 155

Antarctica and sub-Antarctic

islands, 246–249

Australian marine pollution,

153–157

biodiversity, 46

coastal development trends, 153

driftnet ban, 147

fisheries, 148–153, 248–249

global warming impacts, 162–164

international cooperation, 147

national policy, 154

petroleum operations and spills,

155, 157

seagrasses, 160–161


See also Coral reefs; Fisheries;

Mangrove forests; Marine

protected areas; Water pollution

Oil, 168

Australian resources, 169–170,

171

New Zealand consumption trends,

175

pollution, 155, 157

Organic agriculture, 108

Ozone layer (stratospheric ozone),

191–194, 242–243

Ozone pollution (tropospheric

ozone), 186

Ozone-depleting substances, 192

Pacific Island nations, 146

air quality, 191

biodiversity trends, 40–47

development trends, 17–18

energy issues, 182–183

environmental activism, 226–228

fisheries, 150–153

forests, 70, 88–93

global warming impacts, 201–204

land use, 20–22


marine protected areas, 69–70

population, 16–19

socioeconomic conditions, 19–20


tourism, 18, 20

transport sector, 182

See also specific islands, states,

subregions

Pacific Island nations, agriculture

in, 98

Fiji, 47

impacts, 98

Melanesia, 110–115

Micronesia, 115–116

Papua New Guinea, 97–98,

110–111, 141

Polynesia, 116–117

subsistence, 111

Vanuatu, 45

Palau, 16, 17, 146


development trends, 20–21

independence, 207

Papua New Guinea, 1, 16, 17, 140,

146

agriculture, 97–98, 110–111, 141

alien species, 41


conservation movement, 227

development pressures, 21

environmental legislation, 217

forests, 40–41, 73, 89, 90, 227

Index 265

Papua New Guinea (continued)



hydroelectric power, 182

mangrove forests, 74–75


population, 111, 185



threatened species, 28, 41


Particulate air pollution, 187

Pastureland, 12, 97, 108

Pesticides, 128, 157–158

Pitcairn Island, 16, 17, 146


Plant invaders. See Invasive species

Plantations, 76, 78, 81, 87–88, 92

Poets, 211

Polynesia, 16, 88, 146




specific islands or states

Population, 185

Australia, 1–2, 58

New Zealand, 11

Pacific Island nations, 16–17

Poverty, 19

Protected areas, 51–72

Australia, 9–10, 53–65, 81–82

classification, 52–53, 68

coastal areas, 9–10

Great Barrier Reef, 157

indigenous areas, 62, 63

international conservation

agreements, 62–63


national parks movement, 213

New Zealand, 37, 65–67, 86


sub-Antarctic island reserves, 63

threats, 57–59

tourism, 58–59

whale sanctuaries, 70, 245

See also Australia, parks and

protected areas; Marine

protected areas

Protocol on Environmental

Protection, 235–236

Public transportation, 181, 189

Queen Elizabeth II National Park,

69

Racism, 209–210

Rainfall, 121, 134, 136–137

Rakiura National Park, 65

RAMSAR sites, 62, 69

Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs),

61, 78, 83–85

Renewable energy, 167, 172–173

biofuels, 178

co-generation power plants, 177

New Zealand system, 175–180

wind power, 178–180

See also Hydroelectric power

Rigby, Alan, 214

Royal National Park, 213

Salinity, 9, 130–131

Samoa, 16, 17, 140, 146

agriculture, 99, 117

forests, 90



266 Index



See also American Samoa

Scientific Committee on Antarctica

Research (SCAR), 234

Sea level rise, 47, 162–164, 198,

201, 203

Seagrasses, 160

Sewage, 153, 157

Sheep ranching, 108–109

Skin cancer, 192

Snowy River, 135–136

Soil quality, 9

agricultural impacts, 99, 105, 115

Solomon Islands, 16, 17, 140, 146

agriculture, 99, 113

biodiversity, 45–46

conservation movement, 227

coral reefs, 158


forests, 76, 89, 90, 91–92, 227


mangrove forests, 75

protected areas, 69


Southern Ocean, 246–249

Sport fishing, 148

Stewart Island, 65

Stratospheric ozone depletion,

191–194

Sub-Antarctic islands

alien species impact, 244

protected areas, 63, 161–162

Sub-Arctic Islands of New Zealand, 66

Subsistence agriculture, 99, 111

Suburbanization, 2

Sulfur dioxide, 187

Surface runoff, 121–122, 138

Tahiti, 159. See also French

Polynesia

Tasmania

forests, 30, 74, 83, 77–79, 82

invasive species impacts, 106–107

land use, 8

mining impacts, 5

Tasmanian tiger cloning program,

38–40

Tasmanian World Heritage Area, 62

Te Urewera National Park, 51

Te Wahipounamu, 66

Temperature rise, 162, 194–195,

198, 240–241

Threatened or endangered species, 28

Australia, 30–31, 33, 58, 60

New Zealand, 35, 37


Papua New Guinea, 41

See also Biodiversity

Timber harvesting. See Logging

Tokelau, 16, 17, 146

forests, 90



Tonga, 16, 17, 140, 146

agriculture, 117

forests, 90





Tongariro National Park, 66

Torres Strait Islands, 64

Tourism, 58–59

Antarctica, 239–240



Index 267

Toxic algal blooms, 128, 154, 155

Trade unions, 223

Traffic congestion, 175

Transportation

air quality impacts, 186–187, 189

Australian trends, 174–175,

186–187

greenhouse gas emissions, 187,

194

New Zealand trends, 180–182, 189

Pacific Island systems, 182

public transportation, 181, 189

See also Energy issues

Trash pollution, 155, 157

Treaty of Waitangi, 67

Tuna fishing, 150–152

Tuvalu, 16, 17, 140, 146

forests, 90


global warming impacts, 163,

202, 203

protected areas, 68


Ultraviolet (UV) radiation,

191–192, 243

Uluru-Kata Tjuta, 224

UN Convention on the Law of the

Sea, 146

UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC),

195, 197

Uranium mining, 219

Urban areas

air quality, 186, 189, 191

Australia, 2

indigenous people and, 14

New Zealand, 11

Pacific Islands populations, 18–19

traffic congestion, 175

urbanization trends, 158

U.S.-Australia Climate Action

Partnership, 197–198

Valley of the Giants National Park,

79

Vanua Levu, 47. See also Fiji

Vanuatu, 16, 17, 140, 146

agriculture, 45, 112–113

biodiversity, 45

forests, 89, 90




Vava’u, 117. See also Tonga

Viti Levu, 47. See also Fiji

Von Guérard, Eugene, 211

Wallis and Futuna, 16, 17, 146


soil quality, 99

Warul Kawa, 64

Watarru Indigenous Protected

Area, 64

Water pollution, 153–157

acidification, 130

agricultural sources, 125, 154

Australian freshwater, 127–130

mining wastes, 6

New Zealand, 15, 137–138

petroleum, 155, 157

sewage, 153, 157

trash, 155

Water resources. See Freshwater;

Water pollution

Wet Tropics of Queensland, 62

268 Index

Wetlands

agricultural impacts, 160

Australian RAMSAR sites, 62

New Zealand, 138

Pacific Islands, 69

Whale sanctuaries, 70, 245

Whanganui National Park, 51

White, Patrick, 218

Wilderness Society, 224, 225

Wildlife corridors, 61

Wildlife Preservation Society, 214,

224

Wind power, 178–180

World Conservation Union-IUCN,

52–53, 68

World Heritage sites, 62, 66, 223

World Wide Fund for Nature, 225,

226

Wright, Judith, 215, 218,

223–224

Index 269

Australia Oceania Antartica

Documents

Transcript of Australia Oceania Antartica